Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tixati (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. I'm going to close this discussion as "No consensus" since there have been no new participants after the last relisting. There is a clear difference of opinion on the adequacy of the sources so I don't see a consensus emerging. Liz Read! Talk! 02:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Tixati
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Not notable per WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG reviews are few and far between and they alone are not sufficient for notability, no sources discussing significance of the product. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 12:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 12:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I do agree Tixati is not the most well-known Bittorrent client, but it is an actively maintained piece of software. The last release was from October 14, 2022. I'd personally vote not to delete the page.
 * However, if the Tixati page is deleted, it would only be fair to also start the deletion process for the other smaller BitTorrent clients listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_BitTorrent_clients J0bb13 (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well known does not mean notable, since you are a newer editor, please take some time to understand the notability guidelines. As for the deletion of the articles on other clients, that also depends on the notability of those clients, so that would need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed J0bb13 (talk) 08:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sidenote: I know it's futile since the page is likely going to be deleted (as it was before), but I reverted the last edit by Mrizwan.s as it seems to be spam, it linked to some crackquick website. J0bb13 (talk) 08:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per the numerous reliable reviews cited in the article (some of which should probably be replaced with Wayback Machine links as the review content seems to have disappeared, but that has zero bearing on notability). Contrary to the assertion by nominator User:Champion, multiple reviews from reliable sources are precisely what demonstrate significance per WP:GNG. (Also note: WP:NSOFT is an essay, not policy.) Modernponderer (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete . I only see listings except for . The other sources do not provide WP:SIGCOV and cannot contribute towards GNG. Besides, GHacks seems like an okay-ish source but not a good one for WP:GNG. 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 08:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @User:0xDeadbeef: "Listings" which include several paragraphs of content specifically about this software, including the reviewer's opinion of its features, absolutely contribute to GNG. But TechRadar also has a standalone review: https://www.techradar.com/reviews/tixati
 * Together with the full-fledged review from gHacks (which is notable enough to have an article here!) that's the "multiple reliable sources" required by GNG already. Modernponderer (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I have to doubt the reliability of that TechRader review here. They seem to have no idea what security means. "there’s no particular need to worry about the security of Tixati, at least not going by VirusTotal, which registered zero threats after scanning the installer file (at the time of writing)." Their page about how they review stuff also do not suggest that they have such reviews peer reviewed before publication. All others are borderline reliable. 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 18:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What in the world...? What does your personal opinion of the review have to do with its notability!? And "peer review"... what!? This isn't a scientific publication! Literally none of what you just wrote has any bearing on notability on Wikipedia.
 * I strongly suggest that you have a look at other software AfDs, because while I'm still trying to WP:AGF here... it's getting difficult. Modernponderer (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying it isn't reliable.. to me. I have looked at other software AfDs and the notability of this article as established by the sources shared does not easily pass the WP:GNG. Perhaps I should have used better wording for my comments on TechRadar. It should be more like "editorial oversight" than "peer review". Sorry.
 * And then obviously whether a subject is notable should be determined by consensus, and therefore the views of different edits will have bearing on notability. The content of that review makes me doubt its reliability and their level of editorial oversight. That's it. 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 05:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you're applying a much higher standard than WP:RS, just to this specific article. If we start questioning sources like TechRadar based on minor details, we may without exaggeration have to delete half of Wikipedia. (And if a topic doesn't "easily" pass the GNG, but still passes, it should be kept and not deleted by definition.) Modernponderer (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  01:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. While that I disagree with Modernponderer on their points raised above, having significant coverage in multiple reviews seems good for WP:GNG even though some of them are not 100% reliable. Although it can be hard to assert notability within the article, I think it is okay. 0x Deadbeef  →∞ (talk to me) 03:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.