This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
The BiglyBT.com domain is currently blacklisted from Wikipedia due to disruptive additions in 2019. As a result, the website link is hidden, and the official Features page currently links to example.com instead. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
For the reviewer: this log is also interesting. And I can not help to note that a substantial number of sources is directly related to the subject. It could be worth checking the older attempts. The Bannertalk22:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
@The Banner I don't see how a quarter of the sources being primary is a problem when that means we have 13 secondary, reliable sources and only cite the primary sources for at most 4 sentences. I have no idea what you mean by "shaky at best", as these sources are reputed at RSP and/or RSN. I do not believe these maintenance tags have any merit on an article that has been reviewed by AfC and gone through NPP review. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Source 1, 2, 9, 10, 11 and 16.
And I have concerns about the independence of all those comparisons used. In my opinion, the sourcing is at least shaky due to lack of sources that discuss the subject in depth. The Bannertalk15:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I know that these sources are primary. My reason for objection is not that I don't know which sources are primary. Please re-read what I said. Not sure what you mean by independence of all those comparisons. The secondary sources are all pretty trusted. Nearly every other source counts as in-depth, aka WP:SigCov, which they well beyond satisfy. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
You ignored all of my concerns about shaky notability based on primary, outdated and low quality sources. But you kept blowing that off without any independent sources or recent sources. The Bannertalk16:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
As I have said, all of the sources except the ones you numbered are independent and high-quality. And how do "recent sources" (assumedly newer than the February 2023 one we already have) any bearing on this? As you've seen at Vuze, notability is not temporary. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
In prior discussions you stated yourself that the notability is shaky. With you claiming that the article is not notable enough for a separate article. And another claim that BiglyBT night be borderline notable. See Talk:Vuze#May 2024. But when I question the notability and sourcing of BiglyBT, you start jumping up and down. But no further independent sources and no further recent sources are forthcoming. The Bannertalk16:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Since making the comment that you're referring to, I have participated at AfD and improved my familiarity with notability guidelines. I now believe that my past assessment was incorrect. Instead of just repeating "not forthcoming" and claiming that I am jumping "up and down", please argue why these sources are not indepedent, are not in depth, and are not usable due to being published in the past. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Would you kindly elaborate on "highly promotional"? I don't see any possible concern with the TorrentFreak one, and assuming your doubting the independence of the lists, these are from sources with consensus of reliability at RSN and are known to disclose paid connections if they are there. These articles do not have any paid connections. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
You are poorly reading what I am writing but my concerns are about these sources:
parg, "Decentralized Chat", BiglyBT Wiki, GitHub, retrieved 1 August 2024
Bigly Software, "Feature List", BiglyBT, retrieved 1 August 2024
parg (20 June 2024), Plugins, GitHub, retrieved 1 August 2024
Welp, in my defense, you responded to me asking about your concerns about the non-primary sources and notability before you followed-up with a claim that AfC and NPP do not vet notability. Can we remove the notability tag? Collectively, these sources only cite 3.5 features plus a fact that they're implemented through plugins. Now, I've removed two. What about now? What grievances do you have against the 3rd source you listed? Also, I think it would be better for you to just remove the two features instead of just tagging. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
You seem rather persistent in not explaining what you mean/doing more than the bare minimum for engagement in discussion nor taking the article to AfD. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Firstly, you just said you think the article doesn't meet notability and should be deleted, and that's exactly what AfD is for. Secondly, you still have not explained your notability concerns (or discussed the primary sourcing after I removed some of them). Aaron Liu (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=logo}
