Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitbucket
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 speedy keep. per WP:SNOW. Bad faith and/or misguided nomination. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 23:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Bitbucket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable software. Subject has not been featured in multiple mainstream news sources, and the article presents no inherent notability. I've noticed a thread that almost all these articles were created by Atlassian, who seems to be spamming Wikipedia for promotional reasons. Delete. CitizenNeutral (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep: You've got almost all facts wrong. Bitbucket isn't "software", it's a website. The article couldn't have been created by Atlassian, it was created[1] before Bitbucket was even bought[2] by Atlassian. And it is the subject of plenty of independent articles: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. -- intgr [talk] 20:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Wikipedia's own comparison of the popularity of project hosting sites shows that Bitbucket is three times more popular than Codeplex, based on the number of projects it hosts, and about a third as popular as SourceForge. Neither the articles about Codeplex nor about SourceForge are being considered for deletion. Also, speaking as a professional software developer, Bitbucket is well known amongst developers. It is one of the big four sites: GitHub, SourceForge, Google Code and Bitbucket, although I would say it is the least popular of the four. It is notable, regardless of who wrote the article. TeWaitere (talk) 11:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, numerous articles about it from reputable third party sources on top of the ones mentioned above, and as usual it took longer for me to copy-and-paste the URLs and titles than it did for me to find them:
- 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.