- 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. Arguments from the recently created accounts are weak and lack substantial evidence. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tkabber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Unreferenced article about a subject of dubious notability. JBsupreme (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable software. I can't find any reliable (!bloggish) independent in-depth reviews of it. Close might be [1] brief mention in a round-up style article that makes claims of notability about this group. DMacks (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep : It is a very important XMPP client ! You can look on the World Wide Web ... — Neustradamus (✉) 03:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The XMPP Standards Foundation know Tkabber : http://xmpp.org/software/clients.shtml; http://www.ohloh.net/p/tkabber; official debian package http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=tkabber; ... — Neustradamus (✉) 21:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep : Tkabber is definitely not such a buzzword piece of free software like GIMP, but it is one of "big three" XMPP/Jabber clients (Psi, Gajim, Tkabber) and the first of them to gain certain advanced features. So if you're considering deletion of this page, then please be systematic about this and also expunge the pages of all other notable XMPP clients and possibly all other instant-messaging clients. As a person who wrote the bulk of this page, I can honestly say that I'm not completely sure about whether Wikipedia is really a place to describe software, but I just followed what appeared to me like a system: there are many pages describing well-known pieces of instant-messaging software, cross-linked using categories etc. As to "press coverage" (i.e. notability) — please note that it is an instant messenger oriented towards experienced users and thus its users are not counted in billions; lame editors of "IT-oriented" on-line journals are not usually interested in such software because writing about it will not move their article to the top on slashdot and reddit. Khomoutov (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC) — Khomoutov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- 'it is one of "big three"' is a viable claim of notability, as is "the first of them to gain certain advanced features". Is there some source that supports those statements? DMacks (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's hard to give precise sources as we're not in the world of scientific papers. Also no one usually cared enough to create feature comparison charts between competing pieces of software. Anyway, here are some results of fossile excavations: a) an interview with Tkabber's creator which discusses what innovation was introduced by the project, b) this commemoration talks about Tkabber mentioned in Jabber Journal and also has interesting info on death/survival ratio of XMPP clients. I fail to prove such things like pioneering proper implementation of various types of file transfers and other "techie" stuff due to the reason stated above. Khomoutov (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- 'it is one of "big three"' is a viable claim of notability, as is "the first of them to gain certain advanced features". Is there some source that supports those statements? DMacks (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2009 (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.