Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of BitTorrent sites (3rd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of BitTorrent sites[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Feature comparison list of BitTorrent websites that seems to consist entirely of Alexa ranks and claims sourced from the subject websites themselves. The list and the comparisons seem to be based entirely on original research. There are no reliable independent sources that establish this list as a cohesive subject. Fails WP:LISTN and WP:NOTDIR. - Mr X 12:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its provide encyclopedic reference for the reader, that is nearly completely sourced via primary sources, except for website ranking on Alexa. However, what party is going to write about the websites' features? It is a listing of which common features each site has. --Frmorrison (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is the source of the comparisons? For the list to be encyclopedic, it would surely need to be referenced to respected sources that are qualified to make such comparisons.- Mr X 17:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (no change since last consensus) The article was deleted after its first nomination, then was modified extensively and was kept after a second nomination. I haven't seen anything that alters the last consensus reached save a small edit conflict. Sure, notability and the slew of byzantine guidelines that underlie it are a proxy for what articles people want in their encyclopedia, but let's at least try to pretend this isn't an arbitrary and capricious exercise hinging on who chooses to participate. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is supposed to be the threshold for inclusion. It's fine to disagree with that, and lobby to change it, but the reality is that a comparison of bit torrent lists and search engines is not a notable topic as required by WP:LISTN. It also means that comparisons in the article are original research, which is also not allowed.- Mr X 17:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: It's not the notability guidelines I take issue with here in particular. It's the rather cynical attempt to bypass consensus by holding repeated discussions in the hopes of getting different participants and thus, different results. The notability guidelines are merely the vehicle for that bad behavior. And not to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I believe you may have misinterpreted the policy about list notability, which require only that the grouping the list represents be notable. Unless you're suggesting that any sort of feature comparison, such as those of Wikis, Forums, or CMS's constitute original research. But I don't think that's an argument you'd wish to make. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 17:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 17:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 17:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (no change since last consensus) (subject is in the top 100 notable sites on the net, and comparisons are common on Wikipedia) --Tim (talk) 03:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure original research. Renata (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Aside from the other keep rationales noted above, I find the first citation needed tag on the article page, near the top, after the sentence, "Operating a tracker should not be confused with hosting content", baffling. ...well, it's true: dogs should not be confused with cats, and, while I only play a veterinarian on TV, I am reasonably certain you don't need a cite tag for saying so.--Froglich (talk) 11:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No change since last consensus, notable page, it's a very visited site (stats) and in my opinion is extremely useful. rayukk | talk 17:05, 2 November 2015 (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.