Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tixati

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. L Faraone 00:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tixati[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. I discussed this article with its author on their talk page, they weren't able to address my concerns. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original discussion is here: User_talk:Jec#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Tixati. I have tried, to the extent of my possibilities, to address Lukeno's "concerns":

the subject matter is notable: Tixati appears to be a completely original implementation of BitTorrent, not based on an existing codebase, with a rather remarkable set of features, notably a complete implementation of both a UDP transport, and one of the three existing implementations of BEP-32; to my untrained eyes, this would appear to satisfy WP:NSOFT;
at least one of the article's references fully satisfies WP:GNG: I will let you consult Wikipedia's TorrentFreak page, which raves quite eloquently about the high reliability of said publication. Jec (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said to you before, it may be notable within BitTorrent circles, but it definitely doesn't pass Wiki guidelines as there's no real coverage (bar one place, which I dispute the reliability/independence of, the aforementioned TorrentFreak) in any WP:RS of those technical features. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 06:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NB: RS/N is and has been okay with TorrentFreak in limited capacities. czar · · 01:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Darkwind (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 00:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I took a good look and I'm only finding relatively usable reviews from About.com and TorrentFreak, but (per NSOFT), reviews alone don't prove notability. I tried to find refs that show how Tixati became a "top torrent software package" in mere months. I tried to find proof of its popularity, "completely original implementation of BitTorrent," notable innovations, etc. There's nothing about this software (currently) that proves notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. czar · · 01:30, 24 April 2013 (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.