Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GetDataBack Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GetDataBack

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. Shereth 21:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GetDataBack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — aBSuRDiST -^T ☺ ^C- 05:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is an orphaned perma-stub, and fails to meet WP:Product. Article should be deleted if third party sources cannot be found to establish notability. aBSuRDiST -^T ☺ ^C- 05:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep? My brief searching found a handful of sources, including brief mentions in PC World and The Washington Post, though I'm not sure if it is enough. PC World, Washington Post, PCPerformancetools.com, and PCTechTalk. This software saved me when I accidentally fdisked the wrong drive several years back. Perhaps the company should have an article and the software should be mentioned there? swaq 16:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, I think the links establish some notability, and it is always very hard for software to be considered notable and to be talked on other notable websites. And not that it should count but... it also saved a lot of my data, and i personally consider it one of the best data recovery software... I think it should have an article, being a stub does not mean it should be deleted... SF007 (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, I would never nominate an article to AfD only because it was a stub. However, per WP:Product, "Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself..." The company that makes this software (Runtime Software) does not have an article. Is the software notable while the company is not? Maybe so. Has an article just never been written about the company even though it is notable? -- aBSuRDiST -^T ☺ ^C- 02:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Move to Runtime Software. Ruslik (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Swaq. This particular product is apparently prominent enough to be presented in several overviews of data recovery software in such independent sources as the Washington Post. That's good enough for me. Unless Runtime has other notable products, I would prefer to keep this article as the main one: it is certainly possible for a barely notable or non-notable company to have a notable product and that seems to be the case here. Mangojuice^talk 14:10, 17 July 2008 (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.