Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GetRight (4th nomination)


 * 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. Tone 09:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

GetRight
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Two-sentences reviews can never count as "significant coverage". The lengthier reviews provided are from unreliable websites, since they aren't actual reviews but are fake "reviews" with download buttons. The CNET article is perhaps the least dishonest source with significant coverage, but that's just one source, and GNG requires multiple sources. w umbolo  ^^^  13:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning)  talk  15:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage from independent reliable sources. —  Newslinger  talk   10:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources in the article suffer from link rot, but here are three of them:
 * "GetRight 4.5d review" by CNET
 * "Review: GetRight" (archived) by Practical PC (editorial team)
 * "Just Download and Forget About Everything Else!" by Softpedia (editorial team)
 * The Softpedia article is not that great, so I'll consider this 2.5 sources, which is still more than the 2 required by WP:GNG. —  Newslinger  talk   10:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as 0.5 sources. It's either 0 or 1 (and every publication is limited to 1). Practical PC has two editors, and I'm not convinced that every article published by their contributor is reviewed by the two editors. w umbolo   ^^^  10:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Another RS: Short review on heise.de (ct magazine webpage; German; published in c't 10/1998) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavlor (talk • contribs) 10:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * At the bottom of the article it says: GetRight 3.1 (getrt310.exe, Shareware, 17,50 US-Dollar) steht auf http://www.getright.com/ sowie in der c't-Mailbox zum Download bereit.
 * Translation: GetRight 3.1 (getrt310.exe, shareware, $ 17.50) is available for download at http://www.getright.com/ and in the c't mailbox. (emphasis mine)
 * This seems to indicate that the source is not independent. w umbolo   ^^^  10:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, computer magazines had cover disks (tapes, CDs) since the 80s, hosting freely downloadable software is only next step.  Do you have any proof Heise Medien is paid by authors for hosting and advertizing their software? That would be quite big news in Germany, ct is considered most reliable among the German magazines. Pavlor (talk) 11:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't have to be paid to have a conflict of interest. But we may discuss this at WP:RSN. w umbolo   ^^^  11:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per the sources here, and no change from the previous two AfD Keeps - the last one being less than a year old, makes me question the relisting timing. Widefox ; talk 02:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment It's possibly worthy generally to attempt to hold to higher sourcing standards than previous, but a well chosen group listing or merge-to-list for small bits of software/extensions and working with rather than against consensus and editors may achieve something. Widefox ; talk 02:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Seemed to be on top of resumable downloads etc quite early on and referencing appears adequate. Shame the PC Pro is a dead link.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources identified by Newslinger and Pavlor. I think Wumbolo's interpretation of when a source counts as "independent" is overly strict. In my view, an established computer news site does not cease to be an independent source just because it makes the software being reviewed available for download (or, back in the day, as a cover CD or floppy). SJK (talk) 06:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.