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. Sources have provided here to establish notability which have satisfied those who have commented after they were provided that notability is established. They do need to be added to the article however. Davewild (talk) 10:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RTorrent[edit]

RTorrent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This non-notable software article has no third party references. The most obvious hits on google references searches prove the software exists, but do not show notability. Miami33139 (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By 'google references searches', do you mean just a straight Google? Because I see many hits in Books/News/Scholar. --Gwern (contribs) 22:26 15 November 2009 (GMT)

Those hits are trivial mentions. Joe Chill (talk) 22:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the books/scholar/news searches and they were not significant. "You can use software like rTorrent to download torrents." is not significant coverage. Miami33139 (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the second of two suggested torrent clients on the Debian Wiki and I've seen it recommended in a bunch of other places. It seems to be well thought of. Hga (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability is the criteria we wish to look for. Recommendations on user submitted content sites are not. Miami33139 (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is not a one-size-fits-all-good-for-what-ails-ya guideline; we just don't have good ideas about what makes notability for FLOSS or even BitTorrent software in general. Looking through Category:Free BitTorrent clients and at examples like Gnome BitTorrent or Tomato Torrent or Freeloader (software) or Miro (software), I don't see anything like the usual stuff in a BLP, for example; the only one with the usual panoply of MSM sources is utorrent. Unless one is willing to say that the entire category is rotten, blind counting of MSM sources would not seem to be the correct method. --Gwern (contribs) 00:24 16 November 2009 (GMT)

Part of the problem with pointing out that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is that it encourages people to go notice that it probably doesn't belong here. It really doesn't matter what the software does, or how it is licensed or developed. We don't document every software tool just like we do not document every model of toaster. It is a core principle of Verifiability that if we document something somebody else had to document it first. Most software is not interesting, even if it is unique, and something has to tell us that this software is not run-of-the-mill. Miami33139 (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a WP:IAR !vote. I understand this is not strictly passing WP:GNG, but in such cases this seems to me a weak argument to delete. We badly need distinct guidelines for free software notability. Such software can have a wide and strong community, and thus being notable in the broad meaning of the word -used and known by a non-trivial amount of people- without ever ending up in "classical" sources, simply because these are not the venues in which such softwares are usually extensively discussed. We had several examples of that. There is no reason to think the information in the article is unverifiable or unreliable, even if it relies mostly on primary sources and/or non-conventional sources. Deletion of the article, therefore, does nothing to improve WP -quite the contrary. --Cyclopia^talk 00:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number of computer users that actually use bittorrent is fairly small and it is our systemic bias on Wikipedia that makes us think differently. Then when we consider the even smaller number of users who prefer oddball client software (this is not the primary client on any major distro), and that to even think about using this software, it requires Linux, which has a small userbase to begin with, and we do have a pretty good sense that this software is indeed trivial. Being the primary go-to information source for software like this does damage Wikipedia because it turns us into a vehicle for WP:PROMOTION, which is against a core policy, not just a guideline like Notability. Miami33139 (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It depends on what you mean as "small". I don't think that we require millions of users to deem something worth of inclusion. About WP:PROMOTION, it applies to the tone of the article, and not on the existence itself of the article (in most cases). In this case the article, apart perhaps for a sentence in the introduction, seems decently unbiased. Mere technical coverage is not promotion, in my opinion. I stand by my (admittedly heterodox) statement. --Cyclopia^talk 10:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The mere existence of a Wikipedia article is a method of promotion for non-notable things even if the language in the article is our definition of neutral. This is why there is speedy deletion criteria for bands, people, and companies. This is why DRV is constantly being appealed to by PR firms.
        • If the language is neutral and information is verifiable, the fact that it "promotes" is a mere by-product of which we should not care at all. The fact that an otherwise unbiased article accidentally helps or hinders X is not a reason to avoid covering X. --Cyclopia^talk 16:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I disagree that BitTorrent 'is fairly small'. The Pirate Bay claimed more than 12 million accounts, TorrentSpy more than 2 million; uTorrent supposedly has 28 million unique IPs monthly and Mainline BT 7 million. Even in 2005, CNN was reporting more than 45 million people using BitTorrent. bittorrent.com claims over 150 million people use BitTorrent currently. BitTorrent (protocol) mentions that anywhere from a quarter to half the Internet's bandwidth goes to BitTorrent; even remembering that a BT user is using up a lot of bandwidth, that implies a lot of users. Perhaps BitTorrent users aren't numerous in comparison to someplace like China's total population, but a million is pretty significant and 100 million very significant. --Gwern (contribs) 15:39 16 November 2009 (GMT)
      • rTorrent is not anywhere close to Bittorrent. 100 million users is an obvious indication the torrent protocol, community, and etc are notable. However, if 2% of that number is Linux users, and 2% of Linux users use rTorrent, that is not a huge number. Miami33139 (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's 40,000 users. DezSP (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Which is probably a rather high estimate. Usage stats from the Tribler Tracker show "Other" as being less than 1% combined. Miami33139 (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just went to wikipedia for some general information about this client and discovered the deletion candidate status. No I did not google first, I nowadays expect wikipedia to be the place to look for these things. I know a number of people who praise rtorrent, but before I look into it I collect some information. It is in the official software repository of my Linux distribution (and I imagine in many others as well). And no, the official homepage of the client is not the place to go for me, because should there be any items to criticise about the product, chances are that these are not mentioned there. So please, *keep* this article, it was really useful to me.

Update: just did some research on my earlier point: This page [1] lists no less then 10 Linux distributions have rtorrent in their repositories, including Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, SUSE and Mandriva. (read: the major players) This is also the case for OpenBSD, FreeBSD and NetBSD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.8.38 (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Being listed in repositories does not make something notable, or we would have an article for every piece of software in the iPhone app store. What you are saying, is that you come to Wikipedia as your first source, and you expect Wikipedia to be your first source of information. This is not why Wikipedia is here. In fact, the Original Research policy absolutely prevents Wikipedia from being the first publisher of information. You expect to find criticism but we require that criticism be verifiably attributed to third party reliable sources. This article is not attributed to sources, therefore the information in it is potentially suspect of being wrong and you would be misled in your reliance on it. Miami33139 (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, actually it somehow does in my opinion, in the meaning that it means that different third parties feature it. In a certain sense this is third-party coverage: it means that several third parties reviewed it and deemed it suitable for featuring on their distributions. It is in some way akin to peer-reviewed coverage.
• More importantly, your argument about "first source" is totally disingenous. The user intended is that he expects to look here first before further search, to find a roughly reliable summary of information here, before looking for further sources -that's what an encyclopaedia is for, and I agree with him. --Cyclopia^talk 22:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I must agree with the preceding comment. I go to Wikipedia before other sources just because most things that I actually want a neutral piece of information about usually exists here. If Wikipedia would delete all articles about things that are "not notable" in the sense they are fairly obscure to the majority of people, then it would (even if it was done to follow policy) suddenly loose so much of its usefulness to me (and others, I presume). If policy dictates that all software projects, bands or concepts that are obscure and not very well known be deleted from Wikipedia, then that policy is not followed very well right now, which suits at least me just fine. I just hope that is not the case.--Zond Fri Nov 20 10:04:51 CET 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 09:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• • It is really a strange discussion here. I am using rTorrent for years now as it is optimized for speed and most commonly used on servers. It is not a graphical client as it is exactly that: optimized for speed AND for network server use. So it is a unique piece of software unlike other bittorrent clients. And - when I am using it and look for the bittorrent clients used in conjunction with downloading / uploading it is either uTorrent (Windows), Vuze/Azureus (all OS'es), Transmission (Mac), libtorrent (UN*X & Linux: rTorrent shows itself as libtorrent) and sometimes also the mainline client and others. So from my experience I would expect a much broader user base for rTorrent than just 40000 ... I am not a wikipedia contributor so all the "WP:xx" stuff doesn't really belong to me. However, I see some widespread use of this client, so please take that into consideration for your "deletion vote" --91.42.250.57 (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are there any mainstream magazines, journals, or books that describe the use of rTorrent on servers? Is it actually part of or forked from libtorrent, and maybe our article on libtorrent and rtorrent could be combined? Miami33139 (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • libTorrent (Rakshasa) and rTorrent are actually two parts of the same program: libTorrent is the "working horse" and the underlying library, rTorrent is the user-visible interface. Both articles could (and maybe: should) be merged, yes. libTorrent (Rakshasa) was a fork from Libtorrent (rasterbar) and libTorrent is only used together with rTorrent. So libTorrent doesn't play any role without rTorrent - and rTorrent doesn't play any role without libTorrent. rTorrent / libTorrent are - as I stated before - used on network servers. As network servers have a low visibility in the general public the same is true for the programs used on network servers. So you will not find that many (printed or whatever) articles in magazines etc. about rTorrent / libTorrent as you usually do not use it on home PC's (and most printed magazines try to adress a larger audience and that excludes people using server software). I just tried and I failed... Anyway, libTorrent / rTorrent are quite visible on the net. That might happen because you can keep rTorrent running on servers over months and even years without any interruption. --91.42.250.57 (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, LibTorrent_(Rakshasa) should probably merged into rTorrent (while keeping some redirection in place). Rakshasa's libtorrent isn't a fork of rasterbar's, it's an entirely independent project. 62.224.48.204 (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seedbox points to rTorrent and has a reference on Slyck.com that also mentions rTorrent in that context. Perhaps that is considered less user generated, though a Debian wiki reference would enjoy a higher reputation/trustworthiness. 62.224.48.204 (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikis, including Wikipedia, are not reliable sources. Miami33139 (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, they have to print it on paper and call it The People's Daily, no matter how wrong something is it suddenly becomes a reliable source then. I like the spirit of WP:IAR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.224.48.204 (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. See the following reviews: [2] (a comparison of "9 of the best Free Linux Bittorrent Software" with rtorrent being one of them); see this review of the "Linux Editor" at softpedia, summarizing at the end of the article: "It's probably the best torrent client for Linux": [3]. Also see this "feature article" at linux.com: [4]. There is an interesting article about using rTorrent with firefox to get the full performance by avoiding using the bare cli frontend of rtorrent here: [5]. Finally I can't resist to add two links of quite enthusiatic users (although I know that it doesn't count here in this deletion process): [6], [7]. I am asking myself why the wikipedia article about rTorrent is so developer-centric when there is so much more to tell ... --91.42.225.168 (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the basis of the additional references, particularly the linux.com one, which is a full review. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep But article needs to be extended a bit. mfg, OldDeath (talk) 11:24, 23 November 2009 (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.