Talk:Tixati

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) --J0bb13 (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The information that this Torrent client exists should be available to the general public. It represents the need for a low weight, but very powerful torrent client. Since uTorrent started to become a bit bloated I started looking for alternatives. Tixati has been the only torrent client I found that needs low system resources, but is very powerful and configurable. It was hard to find, since it wasn't listed on Wikipedia.

If you take a look at the reviews that have been referenced on the page, you can see that quite some websites listed Tixati as one of the top Torrent clients.

Furthermore, when I look at the list of torrent clients (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_BitTorrent_clients). There are a lot of pages with less information or torrent clients which aren't supported anymore. I believe Tixati deserves to have a wiki page.

I agree, Tixati is well made and recently updated as well, their forums seem to be quite busy also. We've deleted this article numerous times I believe, I guess we can keep doing that but there is no reason to. Deusnut (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The reason for deleting is failing to satisfy the notability guideline, which requires multiple sources with substantial coverage. I believe none of the cited sources substantially covers Tixati. -- intgr [talk] 14:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The referenced reviews seem to have removed Tixati from their lists - Void kom talk  14:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

How
How can i use it Whytho00 (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

AFD
If you think this page should be deleted, you should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.74.74 (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your right about Tixati, though I'd argue the decision in a less "blunt" manor myself, while it is certainly one of the lesser known torrent clients I would personally still consider it to be an obviously notable piece of software. Looks like though they decided to delete it in 2013 (7 years ago!), but no admin ever got around to actually doing it, so we probably need to start a new deletion review and get that decision reversed before somebody decides to actually delete it, which would just be a waste since its a pretty decent article for a lesser known piece of software. --Kwwhit5531 (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)