Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KitSplit

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KitSplit (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)

Fails basic notability. WP:TOOSOON Brian-armstrong (talk) 04:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 06:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not only do I believe the company fails to meet notability guidelines, but the article was obviously created as a PR piece. The best sources I can find are the Forbes article listed in the references and this other Forbes article, both of which seem to use KitSplit exclusively as a reference, as well as this article from Digital Trends, which also banks almost exclusively on the company's statements as a reference. If not deleted for notability guidelines, the article should be WP:TNT'd due to the blatant astroturfing. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 08:55, 27 June 2019 (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.