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 00:08, 21 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]

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 :({{Find sources|GetRight}})
 Apart from this review from [[CNET]] [http://reviews.cnet.com/software/getright-4-5d/4505-3513_7-20030298.html?tag=api&subj=re], 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. <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> 14:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
-:<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software|list of Software-related deletion discussions]]. &#9733;&#9734; [[User:DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER|<font color="Green">DUCK</font><font color="red">IS</font><font color="Green">PEANUTBUTTER</font>]]&#9734;&#9733; 14:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)</small>
+:<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software|list of Software-related deletion discussions]]. &#9733;&#9734; [[User:DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER|<font color="Green">DUCK</font><font or''color="red">IS</font><font color="Green">PEANUTBUTTER</font>]]&#9734;&#9733; 14:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)</small>
 *'''Keep''' This is pretty well-known - several articles in the UK Guardian, for example [http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2001/oct/04/askjack.onlinesupplement here]. [[User:Mcewan|Mcewan]] ([[User talk:Mcewan|talk]]) 16:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 :* 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." <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> 16:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 :::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.
 :::[[User:Mcewan|Mcewan]] ([[User talk:Mcewan|talk]]) 21:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
+*'''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? [[User:Greglocock|Greglocock]] ([[User talk:Greglocock|talk]]) 00:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)