Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jitbit

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jitbit

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company; given sources are either self-published or unreliable, and I have been unable to find any significant third-party coverage of this company. Haakon (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some gnews archive hits [1], but it's pretty thin. Not enough for an article about the company. Pcap ping 06:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - may I point out that the article has been there for several years (link to archive.org of 2006), the company is well known for its products (for instance: google search for "macro recorder" or google search for "asp.net forum software"). I also added a link to the Scott Hanselman's review of one of Jitbit's products to the article. With all the respect, may I suggest to keep the article, since it's not being promotional or anything (just facts and links to sources). Thanks. Jazzycat (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC) — Jazzycat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Hanselman's blog entry might a source for AspNetForum, but he doesn't discuss the Jitbit company at all. Pcap ping 14:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- also added a link to the company's LinkedIn profile and some more references, hope that helps. Thanks for consideration.Jazzycat (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are some hits in Google Scholar [2] that searches in academic literature. We've been their customers for years (read about the deletion on twitter). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.242.73.158 (talk) 08:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC) — 213.242.73.158 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - the founder posted about the deletion on Twitter, citing "I don't get these people" among other things, so watch out for SPAs, etc. That being said, the references provided (LinkedIn profile, blogs, etc.) don't seem to satisfy WP:CORP. On that note, I support deletion. Cocytus [»talk«] 04:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No sources to satisfy WP:CORP. --Ronz (talk) 16:39, 3 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.