Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torrent file


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Torrent file

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

Severe lack of references to back up the information, and those that exist are all primary. Take away all the unsourced info and you'd be left with an article that doesn't really have a purpose to be its own - the content could really easily just be a part of BitTorrent instead of separate here.

Even if sources are added right now in this article, I still think it's wiser to have this info about torrent files just be a part of BitTorrent. Chifonr (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Keep. Poor sourcing is a problem but that is probably fixable. If content is moved to BitTorrent, this should become a redirect not a red link. So keep without prejudice to reworking of content which might leave this a redirect. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: From discussion so far it seems like merge or redirect might be appropriate, but more input would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  18:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 'unsourced info' seems verifiable and, frankly, much better written than BitTorrent (which doesn't have references either). Would've been preferable to incorporate the content from the article into BitTorrent before considering deleting. PaulT2022 (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer that too. I wouldn't want to see content lost if it is verifiable. In either case though this article would be deleted/redirected anyway right? A contributor can attempt to source the info here and publish in BitTorrent. Chifonr (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong opinion on that, I mostly commented to note that there are no obvious issues with the unreferenced portion of it in terms of WP:V.
 * BitTorrent seems a little too big to merge Torrent file into it as of now, making Torrent file a viable content split per Summary style. It's not like there are not enough reliable sources that discuss how torrent files are organised and work in depth, even if they aren't referenced currently. My impression on a cursory reading of BitTorrent, however, was that it's excessively bloated, especially BitTorrent, and it might be possible to incorporate Torrent file content into it without making it too large, but it'd require cleaning up BitTorrent first and probably easier done through a regular editing process than an AfD-mandated merge.
 * I wonder what other editors think. I also pinged a second major contributor to Torrent file, who wrote most of its content, although they don't seem to be active very often nowadays. PaulT2022 (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree, I too noticed it the other day when looking at BitTorrent: very bloated and lack of sources in places (which led to me reporting it). In my view the Torrent file article goes hand in hand with it in terms of cleaning up and restructuring. I still support the deletion of this article, assuming some of the good info here would make its way to a cleaned up BitTorrent. Chifonr (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Keep. There are 17 articles currently present in the Template:BitTorrent "technology" subsection, all dealing with technical aspects of the BitTorrent protocol. The nominator hasn't advanced an argument for why this particular article should be merged into the BitTorrent article - which would imply the topic has some sort of general interest above all the other technical aspects of the protocol, which I don't think is true. And if the argument is that all 17 articles should be merged (after significant condensations), that's something I really think should be done only after consulting related WikiProjects. I also don't see a sourcing issue. Technical articles on recent software often rely on primary source documentation. Ceconhistorian (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Keep per Ceconhistorian. [ User ] [ Talk ] [ Contributions ] 17:52, 2 November 2023 (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.