Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jitbit Help Desk

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) 23:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Jitbit Help Desk (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)

Non-notable software product; 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) 20:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: lack of WP:RS. Sarah182 (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I found nothing beyond inclusion in various download sites and Wikipedia isn't one of them. Pcap ping 06:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: this software was listed in the Wikipedia article Comparison of issue tracking systems for several years (here's a revision from 2007 for example) but was removed because it has no Wikipedia entry. It appears to be a well-known product (411asp directory, Joel's discussion board) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.107.93.83 (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC) — 78.107.93.83 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • None of those are useful keep reasons. There needs to be references complying with WP:GNG to indicate notability. Haakon (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I added another link to a news-story about the software. Also this software is being mentioned here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzycat (talk • contribs) 13:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC) — Jazzycat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Reply (to both keepers): None of those amount to reliable secondary sources. Forums, (other language) Wikipedia, and more press releases. Pcap ping 13:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep L'article merite d'etre conserve, afin que d'autres mai trouver ce programme. we are happy with this product in Switzerland, and years ago we've found this helpdesk app on wikipedia (in the comparision larticle), cause it's the most affordable asp.net-based product... Why does it have to be removed from both comparision and the standalone entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.242.73.158 (talk) 08:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC) — 213.242.73.158 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • It doesn't have to be, but there has to be an indication of notability. As it stands, this fails the general notability guideline. Being a useful or affordable product is not sufficient for encyclopedia coverage. Haakon (talk) 08:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - just to let everyone know, the company's founder mentioned the deletion discussion of Jitbit on his Twitter page, citing "I don't get these people," among other things, so watch out for SPAs, etc. As with the Jitbit article, there doesn't appear to be significant, reliable, non-trivial third party coverage to merit inclusion. WP:ILIKEIT, etc. are not strong arguments to support inclusion, in my opinion. Cocytus [»talk«] 04:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete part of a group of similar articles: non-notable and promotional. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:08, 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.