Talk:Danny Sullivan (technologist)/Archives/2013

More Sources
If somebody would like to work on this article, here are a list of sources provided by the subject. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 16:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Engine trouble The Guardian, Sept. 5, 2002 http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/story/0,7496,786350,00.html

For online shoppers, a sorry 'search' The Christian Science Monitor, July 22, 2002 http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0722/p14s03-wmcn.html

AOL Replaces Overture With Google New York Times, May 2, 2002 http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/02/technology/ebusiness/02GOOG.html

Search engine upstart Teoma takes aim at Google AP, March 31, 2002 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2002/03/31/financial1640EST0028.DTL

Your Search For an Engine Stops With Google Washington Post, Jan. 18, 2002 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A244-2002Jan18.html

Seeking search engine perfection The Guardian, Jan. 17, 2002 http://www.guardian.co.uk/internetnews/story/0,7369,634553,00.html

Google sees profit in product images News.com, Dec. 19, 2001 http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-8225588.html

Striving to Top the Search Lists New York Times, Dec. 10. 2001 http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/10/technology/ebusiness/10ECOM.html

A simple thanks to mother of all search engines Chicago Tribune, Nov. 22, 2001 -- no longer online --

Google evaluates subscription options News.com, Oct. 25, 2001 http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7661450.html

Cyber Law Journal: Invisible Publishing Sparks a Lawsuit New York Times, June 29, 2001 http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/29/technology/29CYBERLAW.html

Paid Placement Is Catching On in Web Searches New York Times, June 4, 2001 http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/04/technology/04GOTO.html

A Search Engine Goes Beyond Google New York Times, May 17, 2001 http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/17/technology/17SEAR.html

Go.com: Just Go, Already Forbes, March 13, 2001 http://www.forbes.com/2001/03/13/0313go.html

Teacup Rescue Dogs Vancouver Village Voice, March 5, 2001 http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0110/gallagher.shtml

Search results becoming more commercial San Jose Mercury News, Feb. 15, 2001 -- no longer online --

The Search Engine as Crystal Ball New York Times, Feb. 5, 2001 http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/05/technology/05LYCO.html

The tricks that win clicks BBC, Jan. 22, 2001 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/dot_life/1126306.stm

Firms pay for search engine play AP, Dec. 11, 2000 -- no longer online --

Google Senses That It's Time to Grow Up San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 25, 2000 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/08/25/BU51614.DTL

In Search of Google Time, Aug. 21, 2000 -- no longer online --

The Search Engine as Cyborg New York Times, June 29, 2000 http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/06/circuits/articles/29sear.html

Lycos to hand off Net-search business Boston Globe, June 19, 2000 -- no longer online --

Google Searches For Success Forbes, May 2, 2000 http://www.forbes.com/tool/html/00/may/0502/feat.htm

Going Gaga for Google PC World, April 20, 2000 -- no longer online --

Helping Webmasters Land in Search Engines' Nets New York Times, March 23, 2000 http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/03/circuits/articles/23sull.html

That's Mr. Search Engine to You Wired, March 10, 2000 http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,34753,00.html

Search sites brush up on people skills USA Today, Jan. 24, 2000 -- no longer online --

Web search results still have human touch News.com, Dec. 27, 1999 http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-1507039.html

Google Keeps Search Simple New York Times, Oct. 6, 1999 http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/10/cyber/articles/06google.html

Searches Where Less, Not More, Is Better New York Times, Sept. 30, 1999 http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/09/circuits/articles/30pete.html

Driving The Web Engines Newsweek, May 25, 1998 -- no longer online --

The Net Column The Guardian, Nov. 5, 1997 -- no longer online --

Notability
subject not notable -tags included.
 * Given the extensive list of sources covering this individual above, please explain exactly how the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. If others agree, the tag can be restored - but you cannot tag an article that meets the criteria simply because you don't like them. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My impression was that the meaning of "coverage" in notability criteria was that the article (or a portion thereof) was actually about the subject, and not just quoting the subject. - Afiler (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The motives of the person questioning notability need to be evaluated in the context of the subject's published narrative: --Openly (talk) 04:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking at the link provided in that post (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jessie_Stricchiola&oldid=456941888), the rationale for the deletion of the former Jessie Stricchiola article would likely apply in this case too, i.e.: "She's quoted in multiple articles, but not much coverage about her per se." - Afiler (talk) 11:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I recommend applying a small amount of WP:IAR and not doing a lengthy debate at this time, as it looks retaliatory for criticism (n.b. I'm not claiming anyone is acting in bad faith, but the appearance is of getting back at a critic). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)