Deletion of Ejabberd

Comment: The sources are not independent as required to demonstrate |notability. Sources by the creator can be used, but only after the software has passed ,  or  guidelines
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:WEB||WP:PRODUCT||WP:GNG)

Comment: We are into specialist software territory here.  But there are 11 Gbook http://books.google.com/books?q=Ejabberd hits.  It is quite subjective what exactly constitutes ''significant coverage'' (an unfortunate property of ) but the mention is certainly more than passing mention.  To me it's significant coverage.  We can then add the about 70 hits from Gsholar http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=Ejabberd&hl=en&as_sdt=2000 - at least indicative that this software has some footprint in some circles.  I like the idea of using Wikipedia as the most comprehensive global reference works, nothing short of a repository of the knowledge of the world, and I believe this is how Wikipedia was originally conceived, before the  tail began to wag the dog.  It is therefore relevant to ask if a deletion of this factual article in any way could possibly ''improve the encyclopedia''?  Deletion can no doubt give personal satisfaction and peace of mind that some guidelines and the otability (software) ''essay'' are uncompromised and untarnished, but Wikipedia is not this kind of rigid cleric bureaucracy. It is possible to find remnants of the "repository of the knowledge of the world" view in the editing policy , which says that we should attempt preserve information and consider merges (was this considered here btw) and even  says that ''For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.''  It's not the first resort.  I believe the delete !votes are weak (if not myopic) as they only consider the present sources of the article, and did not attempt a broader search for sources, before opting for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:EDIT||WP:N)