Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWChat


 * 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   Keep. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 17:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

JWChat

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 00:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Agreed. This isn't some old program that has been around and is "obviously" notable either.  Newer program, not notable.   D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C) 00:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable as probably the leading free software web IM client. Spiral Staircase (talk) 04:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably isn't good enough. It's not confirmed. Even if it was the leading free software web IM client, it does not show notability unless the software has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 04:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK then :)
 * JWChat article on linux.com
 * It has significant coverage by way of inclusion in debian, ubuntu, and freebsd ports
 * There are several articles on the ejabberd community site (The search is for the relevant protocols, so should bring up any similar programs). http://www.ejabberd.im/ carries some weight because it is the main community site for ejabberd which in turn is a very popular XMPP Server (Instant_messaging shows 20 million users). http://www.ejabberd.im is the first google result for ejabberd (higher than the main ejabberd site!)
 * There are similar JWChat articles for other major XMPP servers.
 * There's a list of jabber clients at http://www.jabber.org/web/Clients many of which have pages here. JWChat is at least as significant as some of those included.
 * JWChat is notable because it's an impressive programming feat. It's quite unusual for a program of this sophistication to be independent of the webserver.
 * I've added more content to the article and would appreciate feedback. Spiral Staircase (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I moved a lot of that content into the lead section to make a stronger claim of notability. You really need to work in a couple of citations from newspapers/websites (reliable ones) that are talking ABOUT it, not just mentioning it.  Then I would be happy.  Can't speak for others.  The problem I had was that I looked and didn't find any.  D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C) 20:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   — Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 08:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom and per lack of notability. Newer software David WS  (contribs)  02:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - notability established the usual way. No need to make a special exception in this case. Wily D  14:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Having never heard of this, I did some reading and then sourcing the article. I believe it passes notability. Lawshoot! 22:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.