Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GetRight (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:31, 22 January 2013

GetRight

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apart from this review from CNET [1], this software has not been covered in third-party reliable sources to warrant notability. The CNET article alone (which is only on an update) is simply not enough. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is pretty well-known - several articles in the UK Guardian, for example here. Mcewan (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is "well-known" doesn't mean that it's notable for an encyclopedia. In the link you provide, this is all that talks of it: " My favourite is ReGet, but DAP and GetRight sometimes work when that fails to start, and vice versa. GetRight has a great browser tool." — Statυs (talk, contribs) 16:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was meant as an example, (of the several articles at the Guardian). It's fairly easy to find other mentions confirming that this is/was an important and notable product discussed in reliable sources.

Now I know that reviews alone are not enough, but the given the number found on a quick check, its longevity, and the (at the time) unique ability to restart a stalled download, I consider it a clear keep.

Mcewan (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question for nominator Did you actually search for any sources to support your nomination? If not, don't you think you should have? If you did why did you fail to find them? Greglocock (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed; I searched for about a half hour. Had to keep reducing my search down. The sources the user posted above don't appear to be from reliable sources (apart from Softpedia and CNET, which I used in the nomination). And apart from that, reviews aren't just gonna cut it. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian is a UK national newspaper where it is mentioned 6 times. PC Pro and PC Magazine are or were UK & US (at least) national circulation print magazines. For our purposes they can all be considered reliable.

Here's a wayback link to a shareware industry award.

Here's another review in PC World.

It would be hard to find a magazine in print in say 2004 where this product was not reviewed. Mcewan (talk) 09:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a few mentions in a newspaper and a few reviews does not warrant notability. The awards, however. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is in fact the 3rd AFD for this article - FlashGet AFD for the first. Mcewan (talk) 09:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--JuntungWu (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 ::::Again, a few mentions in a newspaper and a few reviews does not warrant notability. The awards, however. <font face="Arial" size="2em">&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Status|<span title="User page" style="color:black;">Statυs</span>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Status|<span title="Talk">talk</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/Status|<span title="Contributions">contribs</span>]])</font> 14:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 *Comment. This is in fact the 3rd AFD for this article - [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlashGet|FlashGet AFD]] for the first. [[User:Mcewan|Mcewan]] ([[User talk:Mcewan|talk]]) 09:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
+*'''Keep'''--[[User:Juntung|JuntungWu]] ([[User talk:Juntung|talk]]) 13:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)