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

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. Coverage demonstrated by the keep side. As the keep voters stated, multiple reliable sources allow this topic to pass the general notability guideline. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Please refer to WP:NOTAVOTE. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 13:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please refer to WP:BEFORE. Editors are requested there to do a number of steps. There are seven interwiki links whose articles are not mentioned in the nomination. The list of WhatLinksHere shows that this nomination proposes to create a large number of redlinks, yet it proposes to do so quietly. Unscintillating (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Technologically advanced in 1997, the reputable and independent CNET states in 2002, "GetRight is one of the best-known and easiest-to-use of these...apps". Also, see WP:NTEMP, notability is not temporary. Unscintillating (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of the coverage identified by Mcewen and Unscintillating. I am not impressed by the nominator's critique of the sources. Many are of the highest quality. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reviews of the software, if sufficiently in depth, independent and from reliable publishers, do "cut it" as reliable sources contributing toward notability. The PCPro, PCMag, Practical PC, and CNet sources quoted by Mcewan are independent, reliable publishers. The Practical PC, PCPro and CNet sources are in depth. Multiple reliable sources allow this topic to pass notability guidelines WP:GNG, which suggests that this article be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2013 (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.