Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fog Creek Copilot (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fog Creek Copilot

Unreferenced and without any clear assertion of notability. ~~Not seeing any RS coverage in Google.~~ Not seeing significant RS coverage in Google. This is not a new article and it does not seem to have any hope of improving. Previous AfD was 3 years ago and did not reach a consensus. I think it is time to look at it again. DanielRigal (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Found more than 2 and less than 10 creditable – verifiable – reliable – 3rd party references, as shown here [1]. What we get into now, is that enough. Which begs the next question, what is enough? Is it a minimum of 3 or 20 or 50, perhaps a hundred? Boy I wish, we could have more definitive guidelines I guarantee it would reduce the nominations, here at AFD, by at least half and reduce heartburn – grief – nervous twitches (developed by defending your point of view) – and other stress related phobias by 90%. ShoesssS ^Talk 21:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake on the Google search. When I searched Google News I forgot I had to specifically ask for old articles to be included and drew a complete blank. I didn't mean to misrepresent the results of the search and I apologise if I did that unintentionally. I have amended the nomination accordingly. I have looked through the list of hits and, while it provides some verifiability, I am still not convinced the coverage demonstrates enough notability to merit an article. The first hit (ZDnet) is primarily about a film and only incidentally about the software and the rest doesn't seem to add up to much at all on cursory inspection. (Note: I didn't register for the articles that require an ID to read them. I just read the abstracts.) I guess the real question is: How many of these links would actually be useful as references for the article? I think the ZDNet one is the only candidate. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – No apologies necessary and I never thought that you are misrepresenting. In fact, this is the type of article that should be brought to a AFD in that it is borderline and should have a consensus of the community to either Keep or that nasty thing done :-). My current soapbox is what constitutes significant coverage to establish notability. Sorry, just happened to pick your nomination :-(. ShoesssS ^Talk 22:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I look for notability rather than verifiability, I tend to look for inclusion guidelines rather than references exactly because of that reason. There's discussions what is enough references, but also what is non-trivial or reliable. In this case I wouldn't rely on press releases or the software's website as the only sources. The question is how much the movie covers the info in the article and how independent the movie maker really was. -- Mgm|^(talk) 00:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable product. Winner of a Dr. Dobbs Journal "Jolt award" [2]. Reviewed by MacUser here. The film about its development is reviewed here. Referenced in a peer-reviewed article here. Etc. JulesH (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.