Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jitbit Macro Recorder
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 00:47, 13 April 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.Revision as of 00:47, 13 April 2022 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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. Tone 13:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jitbit Macro Recorder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotion for non-notable software product. Given sources are trivial mentions, and I have been unable to find any coverage that would indicate the subject passes WP:GNG. Article is by single-issue user. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jitbit, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jitbit Help Desk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AspNetForum. Haakon (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable, and given the rest of this cluster of articles it's pretty clear Wikipedia is being used as a promotional tool. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: a Google Scholar search is not a source. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 00:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this product was listed in the Comparison of macro recorder software but it has been removed from there because "it has no wikipedia entry". So the only reason I created the article is because the software deserves to be listed in the comparison page. OK, delete this article but put the entry back to the comparison page. Also, could someone please clarify: why the articles about Macro Express and Workspace Macro have their right to exist, but those products are not even close to the popularity of Jitbit Macro Recorder? Stop thinking of witch-hunting, and start thinking of the users. Do they really have the right to know about one of the leading macro-products in the area?
- May I also point out that it was me who rewrote the Macro recorder article to be that full and detailed, and it was me who created the comparison page in the first place, where I have listed ALL available products, not just Jitbit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzycat (talk • contribs) 15:15, 4 January 2010 (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.