Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BitTorrent index comparison

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. --Coredesat 06:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BitTorrent index comparison

BitTorrent index comparison (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Not encyclopedic, completely unsourced, full of redundancies, generally it's a mess. Painezor ^TC 06:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Completely unsourced. It's going to be totally owned by GNAA trolls and website pushers in this state. {Slash-|-Talk} 06:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete inherent original research. Guy (Help!) 12:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. OR and inherently unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not the place for a database of Torrent stats. WjBscribe 13:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This article uses the same logic for it's sources as Comparison_of_BitTorrent_software and was already considered for deletion by User:Wangi. User:(aeropagitica) and or User:Yuser31415 made the decision to keep both articles Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_BitTorrent_software because they do not violate Wikipedia:Attribution. --Tim 17:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment This article was NOT discussed in the AfD for Comparison of BitTorrent software. Do not try to bolster your argument with blatant lies. -Painezor ^TC 23:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I have asked them if they did consider both pages, or if it was an oversight that both pages were nominated on the same AfD page. hopefully they will clarify things for us. I am sorry if I misinterpreted the keep decision. --Tim 04:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. but only for ones we have or will have pages on. If we have articles about them, they are worth comparing. random ones, not so much Owlofcreamcheese 17:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Sounds good if you want to check out the Top 100 and add what is missing that would be great --Tim 20:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. — Krimpet (talk/review) 23:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, although sadly it is clearly the result of hard work, which I hope the editors should find a home for elsewhere. (1) There are no reliable sources, and it seems to me that the nature of the information presented is that there cannot be reliable sources; we should not see blogs as references; (2) it is original research per WP:NOR, synthesising too much from its sources. An editor posted "... believe that they should both be kept, since this comparison is useful, and exists nowhere else on the internet " which seems to me to confirm this; nothing on Wikipedia should be justified by its not being anywhere else, quite the opposite. Notinasnaid 08:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. At least delete the ones (if not all) which are private and people have gotten the information by being or knowing a member of the communities. eggnock 03:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment All information was obtained without membership. --Tim 18:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep & Fix Dont be so delete happy, thats such a problem with wikipedia, none of the reasons that have been put forward for this pages deletion are beyond repair.
  Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver And The Vandal Watchman 21:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Seriously this topic accounts for 1/3 of all internet traffic and people want to delete it? To me it seems like an attempt to obfuscate on the misguided hope that protection will be found in doing so.--Tim 04:43, 23 March 2007 (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.