Talk:GetBack (website)

Notability

This article (GetBack Media, Inc.) was tagged with seeming like an ad in one part (which part?) and with needing more sources.

1) Someone please explain this to me because I don't understand. I've gotten the advertisement accusation before (funny cuz I'd have to be advertising all over the place) and I don't know why it is. My tone must somehow come across that way. Which part seems "advertisey-ish"?

And what about the sources? How can I have better sources than BusinessWeek, Variety, MSNBC, etc. Everything in the article is verified by the website itself or the sources. I don't get it!

GabeCorbin (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

So I've done a great deal of cleanup on this page, but I'm still worried that it doesn't meet notability standards. The article originally had three or four links to what was essentially the same article - that may or may not have been a press release. We need more secondary sources. The author has been notified of this, and if things don't change in awhile, I'm going to push for AfD. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems To Be A Problem Here

Link to website or http://www.getback.com/ goes to a webpage that says they are basically off the air? So, this whole Wiki needs generous updating since it is full of stuff that this website supposedly had at one time, but who knows what it will be after it promises to come out like in the New Year or whenever! Might qualify as "Notability"; might not. . . but since i never write on main article page someone else will have to decide/figure it out! Thank-You! LESLesbrown99 (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)