Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of BitTorrent software
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by (aeropagitica) (talk | contribs) at 15:45, 12 March 2006 (→[[Comparison of BitTorrent software]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 15:45, 12 March 2006 by (aeropagitica) (talk | contribs) (→[[Comparison of BitTorrent software]])
- 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 of the debate was Keep. (aeropagitica) 15:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, non-encyclopedic list of links, subsumed by Category:BitTorrent clients. —donhalcon╤ 16:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The article is useful. - Krohon 22:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Diddek
- Keep - Same vote as for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of web browsers. bikeable (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per bikeable's comment joshbuddytalk 16:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - for reasons already noted. Smerdis of Tlön 17:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - list of BitTorrent software has recently been merged into this article (already reduced redundancy), the list is easy to verify (partially from the individual Client articles) and can be used as a quick overview of the different aspects of each client which can't be achieved by digging through each article in Category:BitTorrent clients --89.55.210.75 18:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - as the nom is making a WP:POINT (see his edit history). Also, per WP:NOT, structured lists are fine. This is not a "mere list." See also WP:LIST. I'm a huge fan of removing a bunch of software lists, but the comparsison articles are generally good (and, this one in particular, is fine). The cat does not subsume this, as it lacks the comparison points. "Unsourced" is not a criteria for deletion. --Karnesky
- Keep - Tnikkel 21:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - useful article. Rhobite 21:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as above. -- Mithent 22:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - useful article, plus if someone really wanted to verify all the information, looking through each client or their website/article is source enough.70.45.50.121 20:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Can hardly be called "unsourced", each client name links to the corresponding entry in Wikipedia, which in turn links to the client's official website. It would not make sense to me to delete this article without deleting the pages it is based on -- 194.158.98.40 22:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per above comments. -- gtdp (T)/(C) 17:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep an excellant resource as is, only to be improved with further edits. 69.14.176.70 05:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because it's the most useful comparsion that google can send you to actually. It misses some more 'in depth' tests, but it's definitely a good resource.
- Keep as it's one of the better and more useful comparison articles.--Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 19:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Information not found in categories. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.