Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of BitTorrent clients


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Owen&times; &#9742;  19:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Comparison of BitTorrent clients

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

Article is entirely or nearly so primary sourced with no significant independent coverage comparing different BitTorrent clients. (This listicle—which barely does any direct comparison—is the best source I can find.) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing,  and Internet. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Neutral for now This article is also a magnet for spam. The Banner  talk 17:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  19:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep A valid navigational and information list. Far more useful than a category, more information provided.  If spam is a problem, then block IP addresses and new users from editing it.   D r e a m Focus  05:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not concerned about spam, I'm concerned about notability. Perceived usefulness is not a valid notability rationale. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Read: Categories, lists, and navigation templates, and the section at Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates.  D r e a m Focus  10:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: This vote doesn't actually provide a rationale for keeping the article other than merely asserting that the article is valid and useful. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per Dynluge's argument at Articles for deletion/Comparison of XMPP server software. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: CLTs don't need notability (only the included elements do). Pretty much all of the things compared here are reasonable; there have been no debates about whether a feature here should be removed, and in my opinion they all look fine. The article has also been pretty stable, so I don't think there's much of a maintenance burden. (The included software in the list are also all articles and should meet notability, so I don't think NOTDIRECTORY-esque arguments apply either) Thus, I don't think Dynluge's argument applies. Aaron Liu  (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP: NLIST applies here. The assertion that only the included elements of a list need to be notable isn't true, because notability is never transitive. The arguments about the stability and maintenance cost of the article aren't relevant and skirt the core issue of notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the relevant guideline, but torrent clients as a whole definitely have significant coverage. PCMag and TorrentFreak list them like once a year. Aaron Liu  (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please point to specific sources and add them to the article. Claiming that two websites could possibly provide coverage on them isn't sufficient. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * and are just examples of lists of them. You also have, which extensively compared 2004's BitTorrent clients to a proposed version, and , a methodology proposal to use on BitTorrent clients.  Aaron Liu  (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As I stated in my last comment, please add these sources to the article. Otherwise, someone may nominate the article for deletion again, which would be a massive timesink. It doesn't have to be substantial. A sentence or two summarizing each source would be sufficient. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * While I don't think the lists have much use, maybe I could indeed find some use in the latter two. I'll try to read up this weekend. Aaron Liu  (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: Articles need to meet notability guidelines in order to be kept, and this article doesn't meet WP: NLIST. The sources in the article don't discuss BitTorrent clients generally, and neither does the article in the nomination. I'm happy to reverse this vote if someone comes forth with compelling evidence that this article meets WP: NLIST (or could meet WP: NLIST with some improvement).
 * HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Can't see how it would meet WP:NLIST but any option for merging can be entertained. Shankargb (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What about the citations I've provided? Aaron Liu  (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep Ample coverage as per the links above. Greenman (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep Meets NLIST, , , . Meets CLN as a Wikipedia navigation article.  // Timothy :: talk  16:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - We're a good 15 years from the bittorrent heyday, so an awful lot of the comparisons and lists will be gone due to linkrot, but there were tons of sources comparing this software to meet NLIST. Might be tougher to find now, but even just doing a google news search returns a bunch of comparisons and lists. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 13:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are counting the sort of listicle articles that Timothy linked, at minimum the article should be moved since these sources don't actually show a comparison between different clients, just listing multiple. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:38, 20 May 2024 (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.