Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xtorrent
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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 delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Xtorrent
Non-notable bit torrent client. JDtalk 22:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete While I know it is used by a small minority... I have to tend to agree that it isn't widely used enough for its own article. MrMacMan 02:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:SOFT FirefoxMan 00:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Of course it's not widely used yet, it just launched and is still in early beta. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.147.169.5 (talk • contribs) 21:42, December 12, 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep If Wikipedia went by the proposed rules of WP:SOFTWARE, most of the articles on software titles in the encyclopedia would be subject to deletion. But Xtorrent has been the subject of a number of articles and a great deal of blog hype in the Mac community due to the notoreity of its developer, so I would argue that it passes even that stringent test. Xtorrent is also notable because it is one of the first attempts to commercialize a Bit-Torrent application on a large, mainstream scale, which has already stirred some controversy. // JoshKagan Jrkagan | talk 10:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Your rationale for keeping is that WP:SOFTWARE isn't applied enough and thus, shouldn't be in this specific case we are looking at? Why use logical fallacies? Just because the person next to you was driving 100MPH and you were only driving 80MPH doesn't mean you can't be pulled over and ticketed. Furthermore, if there are 'a number of articles and a great deal of blog hype' why aren't they listed as sources or cited or linked... or 'anything'? The proposed guideline asks for several independent sources of coverage for an application -- you see only MacDailyNews has been linked and even then it may only barely pass the 'article is more then a recap of download link, report version release' -- but I'll say that MDN article passes that standard. So your argument comes down to 'don't pick this app to delete when others might have problems', there is a lot of hype but there are no links that I can post to the hype and there is controversy that I also can't seem to cite or reference. When you have a actual rational for saving this article like multiple reviews, a userbase or something noteable -- please post it on wiki but right now it fails. MrMacMan 18:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- A quick Google search for the application's name yields over 140,000 hits, including a link indicating that over 1200 people dugg the story on digg.com http://digg.com/apple/BitTorrent_Done_Right_Watanabe_s_Xtorrent_Previewed when Phill Ryu reviewed it, and Ryu's blog is one of the most popular Mac blogs in existence. So, my actual rational [sic] is that the application is notable, and it is improper to delete an article about a notable application by a notable author. Definitely Strong Keep. // JoshKagan Jrkagan | talk 02:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Your rationale for keeping is that WP:SOFTWARE isn't applied enough and thus, shouldn't be in this specific case we are looking at? Why use logical fallacies? Just because the person next to you was driving 100MPH and you were only driving 80MPH doesn't mean you can't be pulled over and ticketed. Furthermore, if there are 'a number of articles and a great deal of blog hype' why aren't they listed as sources or cited or linked... or 'anything'? The proposed guideline asks for several independent sources of coverage for an application -- you see only MacDailyNews has been linked and even then it may only barely pass the 'article is more then a recap of download link, report version release' -- but I'll say that MDN article passes that standard. So your argument comes down to 'don't pick this app to delete when others might have problems', there is a lot of hype but there are no links that I can post to the hype and there is controversy that I also can't seem to cite or reference. When you have a actual rational for saving this article like multiple reviews, a userbase or something noteable -- please post it on wiki but right now it fails. MrMacMan 18:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- The article mentions that the software covered by the article is a beta. Xtinguish. B.Wind 03:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Larry V (talk | contribs) 11:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Don't think it meets WP:SOFTWARE, at least yet.≈Krasniy(talk|contribs) 22:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as failing WP:SOFTWARE. And note to Josh Kagan - blogs do not count as reliable sources. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 22:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP:SOFTWARE - it's been around long enough that it should have more notariety than it does now, not a good sign for inclusion. SkierRMH,07:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP:SOFTWARE and per nom. Anomo 22:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, too thin on coverage for WP:SOFTWARE. Sandstein 21:34, 22 December 2006 (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.
