Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. Ignoring a couple of obvious WP:SPAs, there's only one legitimate user who's arguing to keep, and presented some possible sources. Unfortunately, other users didn't feel the sources presented met our requirements. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GetResponse

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
GetResponse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Run of the mill marketing product used by spammers; article has been under promotional pressure for many years now and remains low quality directory entry; high quality refs about it are scant and the article is sourced to spammy interviews now. Not worth our effort to try to maintain the quality of. Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I got tired of copy/pasting sometime at 2013, just type in "getresponse" +email at Google Books. The article is promotional and needs a re-write, but the company definitely has notability. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 11:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1.@Bbarmadillo: Even if this company doesn't exist, whoever types "Get Response" in Google will get million of results. That is not indication of notability. See WP:GOOGLEHITS
  • 2. Calling this corporate spam as a "Well known solution" is another strong reason to delete it completely from Wikipedia. See WP:SOLUTION
  • 3. None of these bunch of google links are directly talking about Get Response as a company or it's history, structure and such things –Ammarpad (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, came to this AFD while reviewing the contributions of Bbarmadillo, later concluded his declared COI on his user page. Before making a comment here, tried to deep dive before drawing any conclusion, looked at the history of the page especially till this point by Northamerica1000. I can find several references until there, certainly obvious promotional content was deleted after that, however genuine references were also removed of this tech company. Checked previous AfD and comments by ThaddeusB & CorporateM, you cannot expect company's history and related things when you are talking about tech companies. For a tech company, you can neither expect references like a Bank, certainly it would talking about their product. The company is quoted in various other news sources, often mentioned in the list of Collaboration Tools by Forbes and several others. Wikipedia is a place for every industry and I'm thinking it is probably notable. Comment of ThaddeusB in the last AFD; 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. Naluchanda (talk) 14:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC) — Naluchanda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • @Naluchanda: 1–Now one of the person you pinged in your comment is abstaining, meaning he no longer stand by his view of the previous (where he merely endorsed another viewpoint). This trumps your first point of using the previous AfD as a reason to keep this.
  • 2 –By this quote " For a tech company, you can neither expect references like a Bank, certainly it would [be] talking about their product. The company is quoted in various other news sources..." from your comment above, you give another reason to delete this article. Since the news sources are only talking about the product not the company, then you can use the sources and create article for the product. But before then read the guideline WP:PRODUCT to avoid creating one for non notable like this one –Ammarpad (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Forbes references are actually by unpaid writers through "Forbes contributors" platform, not a reliable source! Persistent COI spam editing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for self-promotion. Citobun (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well, to my experience, the software company is known in many communities I have been involved in. It doesn't really take long before I can say the company does satisfy the notability guidelines. Going further, the company did receive significant coverage from top publications in the field. I don't know what else those who voted a 'Delete' are expecting to revert. Being promotional is nothing but a shameful execuse to remove a well-known software provider from Wikipedia for fear that there is COI or UPD which has been denied. Kevdaren (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC) — Kevdaren (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GetResponse_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1171745004"