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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 23:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Jitbit

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

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)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Some gnews archive hits, but it's pretty thin. Not enough for an article about the company. Pcap ping  06:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 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&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Keep there are some hits in Google Scholar 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.
 * 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)
 * Delete per WP:CORP. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No sources to satisfy WP:CORP. --Ronz (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.