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The result was Nomination withdrawn + only delete !vote asking for sources has been thoroughly addressed, leading to withdrawing. Non-admin closure --Cycl^opia - ^talk 10:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kopete[edit]

Kopete (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This contested prod is not notable, the three references are all self-published by the author. No external links function as notability references. Miami33139 (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC) My rationale is withdrawn with the addition of third party references, even if those references are lightweight they are enough to sway this discussion in the absence of well-written notability criteria for software. There is a standing delete vote to consider before automatically closing. Miami33139 (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, for now: So, if I spent some time digging through the 843 google news references to this software, and the 511 Google book references, the aggregate of these mentions could never equal notability? What did your WP:BEFORE due diligence show?--Milowent (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I just searched and found no evidence of notability for this product. What did you find, Milowent? JBsupreme (talk) 05:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Here are but a few of them: ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] [11][12][13][14][15][16]}

--Milowent (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Karnesky (talk) 12:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW, based on withdrawn nomination & a plethora of links being provided to address the one dissenter. This has been nominated for a lot of awards: it has been a runner up in multiple years running for Linux Journal's awards, was runner up to GAIM as the OfB Open Choice Award for best communications software, and nominated for this year's Linux Format awards. There are a ton of Google News and Book hits; I am unsure of the "search" that JBsupreme did, but this seems to meet WP:N quite easily & the article should be cleaned up. --Karnesky (talk) 12:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anyone wants to add two sentences to the article sourced by the best of those references, I'll withdraw my nomination. The rest of the sources should be listed on the talk page for editors to use with future expansion. Miami33139 (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. --Karnesky (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • On reading the references added, they are sparse, but they'll do for now. Miami33139 (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sparse you say? LOL! Its fine. Notability has been established. Please search a little better before nominating something for deletion. Dream Focus 03:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per Milowent. Joe Chill (talk) 00:13, 3 October 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.