Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of BitTorrent sites (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 keep. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Comparison of BitTorrent sites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Re-creation of a page that was AfD once, speedily deleted twice, restored and deleted again. Like other file sharing comparison articles, it lacks reliable sources is unencyclopedic. Dynablaster (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. "Like other..." is a good statement as the "other" are indeed lacking resources too. Still Comparison of BitTorrent clients lives and the same applies to Comparison of operating systems which has been around since 2004, provides valuable information and has 6 poor references. This article has 11 references and growing, provides valuable information, covers additional standards and certainly offers a valuable encyclopedic reference for the reader. Instead of deleting it, I suggest we try to provide additional substance. What would you like to see there that would make it more substantial? Thanks! Nokiki (talk) 02:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think I agree with Nokiki. I wasn't sure at first which way to go on this, and guess I'm still somewhat on the fence. The way I see it this article is pretty much completely sourced via primary sources. The websites compared, themselves, show which features they have, and there aren't really any points of contention in the article that would be challenged. It's not a subjective comparison, like a review of which sites are best. It's just a listing of which common features each site has, and an explanation of each feature. I think that's pretty encyclopedic, and I don't really see any reason to delete the article. Equazcion (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as an exception if necessary. But has nobody else ever written a comparison of these, or published about them? DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Looking at Google Suggest, the number two BitTorrent related search (in terms of popularity) is "BitTorrent Sites" and Google places this article at #3. Google clearly believes there is value in this article (granted, it being on Wikipedia gets 90% of the job done..). I see no point in deleting this article any more than I see a point in deleting any other "Comparison" article on Wikipedia. I feel comparisons give users a valuable, educational tool. This article that was deleted in the past[1] was nothing but a list of links. This iteration includes far more useful information. Sojourner666 (talk) 07:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is a lot of bad articles on Wiki but sometimes it seems some users are fast to pull the plug on people trying to create something new and useful. True the information in this article could be found in other pages on Wiki but so is the case with so many other articles. The only question I ask myself when I consider a deletion is if the article is useful for people like me that use wikipedia daily. And with this article the answer is a simple Yes. It is very easy for me to make that decision since I am one of those people who download a lot (and I mean a lot...) and for me finding the perfect torrent site is important. Features change, there are plenty of options to choose from out there and there is nothing wrong with a simple page that explains main features and provides a simple table that compares all that noise in the torrent market. Why delete it so fast? Give it time let it grow, more sites will be added in the future. Specially when many sites go down and up all the time and when index quality is a problem having a page here would help get the up to date information about where good torrents indexes can be found. Downloaderprof (talk) 10:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep According to Google there are 480 articles on Wikipedia with the words "Comparison of" in their title[2]. I looked at a few of them and they are all pretty similar - a bunch of features where on occasion there is a reference. Unless you wish to promote a generic ban on such Comparisons, I think this one should stay. I noticed that Dynablaster (talk), who initiated this AfD actually made a revision a few days ago to Comparison of file sharing applications - he added a link to Comparison of Gnutella software (shortly after removing it). Both articles have no real references. Why not put them on AfD too? I don't think arbitrary AfDs are good for Wikipedia. Duras2000 (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball keep from the "oh my god, I can't believe that article was put up for deletion" files. Do I really need to list reasons why more than what is said here already? Ikip (talk) 04:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Duras2000 (talk) 06:52, 25 August 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.
- ^ http://web.archive.org/web/20060813155459/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_BitTorrent_sites
- ^ http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&gl=us&q=intitle:"comparison+of"+site:wikipedia.org&aq=f&oq=&aqi=