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

GetResponse (  | 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

• Delete. classic advertising--no indication of any significance except for the PR it has tried to get. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete--Per nom.@ DGG::--This was accepted by an Orange-moody acc., just one day after creation in draft-space.Speediable for TOU violation? Winged Blades ^Godric 14:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Very non notable and spam my article of minor firm. First reference is interview by the CEO, 3rd, and 4th and 5th refs didn't contain any significan informantion about the subject. Ref 2 is better than the rest but clearly cant make it pass WP:CORP, WP:CORPDEPTH without more supporting indepent sources, which my search actually shows they don't exist. – Ammarpad ( talk) 01:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Its a pity that we have this discussion at all. GetResponse is a well-known solution at the digital marketing field. It is at least as popular as Silverpop or MailChimp. I would argue that the company (service) is definitely notable within its field. Check these book mentions:
• How to Say It: Marketing with New Media: A Guide to Promoting Your Small Business Using Websites, E-zines, Blogs, andPodcasts (2008), Penguin,
• Million Dollar Website: Simple Steps to Help You Compete with the Big Boys - Even on a Small BusinessBudget (2009), Penguin,
• Entrepreneurship Marketing: Principles and Practice of SME Marketing (2010), Routledge
• Follow Up Your Way to Fortune with Gavin Scott: New Ways to Make Your Business Click Using New Technology for Free (2011), FilamentPublishing Ltd
• E-commerce Get It Right!: Essential Step-by-Step Guide for Selling and Marketing Products Online. Insider Secrets, Key Strategies and Practical Tips - Simplified for Start-Ups and Small Businesses (2011), NeuroDigital
• Pimp My Site: The DIY Guide to SEO, Search Marketing, Social Media and Online PR (2012), John Wiley & Sons
• Become a Freelance Writer: Your complete guide to the business of writing (2013), Harriman House Limited
• The Writer's Internet: A Creative Guide to the World Wide Web (2013), John Hunt Publishing
• Create Your Own Website Using WordPress in a Weekend (2013), Taylor & Francis
• Budget Marketing: How to Start & Market an Online Business with Little or Zero Marketing Budget (2013), Global & Digital

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

• Please check book mentions. The company is widely covered at published books on digital marketing and email marketing. -- Bbarmadillo ( talk) 11:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• I checked everything before replying here. We got edit conflict while I am trying to post number 3 above, which answers your question even before you ask, because I am sure you may ask, and you did.– Ammarpad ( talk) 11:48, 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

• Abstain CorporateM ( Talk) 21:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC) 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.