Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seedbox


 * 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Seedbox

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No significant coverage. All cited sources are not independent of the subject. SL93 (talk) 01:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Even if there were no independent sources prior to nomination, there are now: Help Desk Geek and Tech Nadu provide independent comparison of seedboxes. There are scholarly papers on the subject: Rossi et al., "Peeking through the BitTorrent Seedbox Hosting Ecosystem" (partially viewable on gbooks).  Scholar shows numerous other papers discussing the subject, particularly with respect to its use for illegal copying.  In short, another nomination that is a gross failure of WP:BEFORE. SpinningSpark 13:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I DID search for sources beforehand. The first two sources are blogs and now we have one reliable source. SL93 (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The scholarly sources that I see in Google refer to other seedboxes, not the topic of this article. SL93 (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What, all of them? In "Measurement and utilization of customer-provided resources for cloud computing" there is written A seedbox is a private dedicated server for uploading and down loading files, where a peer-to-peer protocol like BitTorrent is used.  What different kind of seedbox do you suppose they are referring to? SpinningSpark 22:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What search terms and how many pages are we talking here? The first page of Google Scholar in this AfD only has one related article which is the one that you posted the first time. On page one, I see articles with titles such as "Rangeland seeder development using semicircular seedbox and auger agitator seed metering concept." and "Convertible seedbox." Page 2, 3, and 4 are the same. I can't see seedbox in the preview of the other article so I can only assume good faith that it's significant coverage and not just that sentence. SL93 (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Try seedbox server or seedbox BitTorrent. Those will give much more focused results.  Or even seedbox copyright if you want to zoom in on that aspect. SpinningSpark 23:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi. 😊 Erm... for some reason, the Springer link permits me to download the whole paper free of charge. Can you confirm? flowing dreams (talk page) 07:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So it does. Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 09:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: This topic has impact, as part of the series on peer-to-peer networking. As an aside, I find this part of the nomination statement very strange: "All cited sources are not independent of the subject." Seedbox is an abstract concept; all sources on it are automatically independent of the subject. If it were a brand name, however, sources published by the brand promoters were not independent of the subject. <span style="font-family: 'Ink Free', sans-serif;">flowing dreams (talk page) 07:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The only sources in the article were Seedbox Guide, SeedBoxList, and SeedBoxCenter. Anyway, they are all unreliable. SL93 (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case, saying "independent" instead of "unreliable" was an unfortunate mistake. And while they might not live up to the lofty standards of WP:RS, I've always had a feeling that those writing this bit of policy never expected 90% of Wikipedia to be about pop culture. I just need a chance to sit down and read that Springer paper, then I can decide whether these sources are unreliable or not. <span style="font-family: 'Ink Free', sans-serif;">flowing dreams (talk page) 07:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Aisteco (talk) 12:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Withdraw: I will withdraw this, although I don't appreciate the bad faith that was brought forth just because I didn't use the same search terms. SL93 (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There was no suggestion of bad faith, I'm sure the nomination was made in good faith, and I apologise if that's how it came across. There may have been an attempt at BEFORE, but it is still "could try harder". <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 20:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Normally when I see editors tell other editors that they didn't follow BEFORE, it ends up being in bad faith. Heck, even if someone comes out and says in their nomination right away that they searched for sources, an editor can come along to ignore that and say that they didn't search for sources beforehand. The whole reason that I didn't say I searched for sources in the beginning is because I know that such a statement typically doesn't matter. I accept your apology. SL93 (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.