Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GetResponse

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. Nakon 21:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GetResponse

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by the creator, who expanded the article, but I still have concerns. The refs primarily mention the company in passing, and come from low visibility trade publications (in particular, Marketing Weekly News - a trade publication of problematic notability itself), blogs, and such (don't be mislead by the citations to Forbes - they are from the Forbes blog hosting service). One review in PCWorld is not enough to make its product pass WP:NSOFT. The company did win Stevie Awards, but again, is this an award that grants auto-notability? Let's discuss. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - not every source in the article is great, but there are enough good ones to establish notability under the GNG. Hundreds more sources exist in news stories and books exist. Really its not remotely close, but if there was any doubt this professional review by PC Magazine would seal it - PC Magazine does not write multi-page reviews of non-notable software. Pinging @Ctg4Rahat: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The in-depth review in PC Magazine is enough to convince me. CorporateM (Talk) 02:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I completely agree with ThaddeusB and CorporateM's points, there are enough good sources to establish notability.Kavdiamanju (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2015 (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.