Talk:BiglyBT

	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 was accepted from this draft on 8 October 2024 by reviewer AlphaBetaGamma (talk · contribs).

Computing: Free and open-source software Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance).

Software: Computing Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Note to the reviewer

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 Banner talk 22:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just like I said, see the talk page thread linked above. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tags

@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 Banner talk 15:56, 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]

@The Banner, I'm fairly sure you shouldn't be re-adding tags wihtout discussion. This feels like stonewalling. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those tags were never refuted, so the claim that you could remove it was already flawed. The Banner talk 15:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your claims and you have not. Please WP:Engage in discussion. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:48, 1 November 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 Banner talk 16:17, 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]

Existing is not the same as notability. The Banner talk 16:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what this means. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:43, 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 Banner talk 16:53, 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]

And again you are blowing it off instead of addressing my concerns. The Banner talk 15:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your concerns about the non-primary sources. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first two are okay. The next three are highly promotional. The Banner talk 13:47, 4 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

The Banner talk 14:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 said yourself in a prior discussion that you doubted the notability. I agree with that so the tag can stay. The Banner talk 02:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

#c-Aaron_Liu-20241101173100-The_Banner-20241101165300
Please, defend your reasons for staying both of the tags. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your own doubt about the notability. The Banner talk 12:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since we don't appear to be particularly forthcoming here, I have solicited a third opinion. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem rather desperate to keep this article, even with its shaky notability. The Banner talk 16:34, 8 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]

Because everybody would see it as an attempt to enforce improvement of the article and that is not the purpose of AfD. The Banner talk 18:41, 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]

And you keep blowing off the issue. I guess you are unwilling or unable to provide better, independent sources. The Banner talk 22:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that there is an issue without identifying it while I have repeatedly asked you to explain your concerns. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ow, and the AfC-process does not check for notability but just checks if the article is technically correct. The Banner talk 13:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patently false. You're probably thinking of NewPagePatrol, which has looser criteria but still checks anyways. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3O Response: The purpose of maintenance tags is to spur improvement or discussion about it, not to act as a "badge of shame", and that's clearly already happened here. I took a look at the sourcing, and a fair bit is not primary (I'm not opining whether it's good; that's outside the scope of the request, but it's not primary), so I think that tag is no longer appropriate. If some believe that the subject is not notable but that's in dispute, that should be settled by discussion at AfD, not leaving a tag on the article indefinitely. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And with all his pushing and blowing of the issues, I still have the idea that there might be a possible COI. The Banner talk 03:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then the conflict of interest of noticeboard is thataway, for examining that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]