Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UTorrent

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 18:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] UTorrent, ΜTorrent

Non-notable software. --fvw* 06:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I have merged & redirected UTorrent to ΜTorrent, since edits were happening to both & the latter is the correct title.Pamri • Talk 12:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Will be an Azureus replacement for a lot of Windows users in the next few releases. Has all the key features without the massive resource hogging of Azureus/Java tedddee 09:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I can't see what should be wrong the article, or with having a bit of information about this program. -- Karl Meier 10:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep one of them. There's no need to have two articles. --220.237.167.46 10:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Reasonably popular for a torrent client. --Pamri • Talk 12:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Can anyone give us a sense of how popular this client is? It reads like an advertisement for the program. If we can get some data on how many active users there are, or # of downloads, that would make the keep/delete decision clearer. | Keithlaw 15:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Info. Here are two links demonstrating it's recent popularity. digg.com & Neowin.net Keep in mind this is a brand new program just released. Also, one of the key features of µTorrent is the ability to run it off a thumb drive due to the program's tiny file size. -- tedddee 16:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Neither of those links says anything about the program's popularity. In fact, if it has just been released, the burden of proof for inclusion should be high. As for key features, those don't matter either. The fact that a program is useful or clever does not make it notable. | Keithlaw 16:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• I'm new here but, what's the sense in deleting this just to come back in a few weeks and re-add it all?  :shrug: -- tedddee 16:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • That's a valid argument. The flip side is that if the program doesn't catch on, there won't be a need to re-add it. And adding non-notable products for the purposes of spreading the word about them is something a lot of Wikipedians (myself included) would like to discourage. I'll vote Delete but I'll change it if I see some real evidence that this program is notable. | Keithlaw 17:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, "brand new product just released." WP:NOT an advertising medium. If it "will be" a new standard, it will be encyclopedia-worthy content when it's proven. Personally I hope it makes it to that level, but it hasn't yet, and might never. Barno 19:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard, for computer software or for anything else, nor is it a software directory or a encyclopaedia of things that "will be". Applying the notability litmus test for software outlined in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ExamDiff (second nomination), and the notability test for products and services at WP:CORP, I find no independently sourced reviews, manuals, guides, books, commentary, or other published works that deal with this piece of software. All that Google Web turns up are listings in software directories and mere reprints of the blurb that comes from the software's author (such as the two hyperlinks supplied above). Delete. Uncle G 05:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete, although it is quite awesome, brand new and as-yet non-notable. It does seem likely, from my POV, that the article will end up being written again in a matter of weeks, but the point stands. --Superiority 16:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This little piece of software is gaining sufficient popularity to be called notable even as this vote progresses.Simoes 06:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I currently use the program. Although it may be new it is one of the smallest and most efficient programs out there. I do not believe this article constitutes advertising. If you look at Comparison_of_BitTorrent_clients this is one of the clients listed on the page. All clients listed on that page I believe should have articles about them. Matthewvelie 23:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep now they've been merged. ··gracefool |☺ 15:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete at least until someone provides a working method to googletest. Google nearly ignores the µ. --logixoul 07:48, 2 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.