Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limera1n
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete. —fetch·comms 03:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Limera1n (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreleased jailbreak software... this is a promotion of a non-notable OS. No sources, just something a dude is working on in his spare time. This doesn't appear to be worthy of inclusion as an encyclopedic topic. — Timneu22 · talk 00:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, NN software. Nakon 00:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- —mono 01:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for violation of Verifiability rule, General notability guideline and WP:SOAPBOX. Fleet Command (talk) 07:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above delete !votes. Not even close in my book. Jusdafax 08:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unreleased app: WP:CRYSTAL. SteveStrummer (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Obvious delete for an unreleased app. This looks like the work of a new and ambitious wikipedia author who stills not sure how things work. Don't bite him though - people like him are needed.Pxtreme75 (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks everyone for the info. I am fairly new and still figuring out how things work around here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Access Denied (talk • contribs) 05:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep There is a lot of coverage of this (Google finds loads of results), but a lot of it is from unreliable sources (which is often the case for things related to pirated software). With that said a few sources could be considered reliable (they're blogs, but fairly well known/reliable ones), such as [1] [2] [3]. The article needs a lot of work, and sources should be added, but I think it could be considered notable. - EdoDodo talk 11:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Not a chance in hell. It explicitly violates GNG. It has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Besides, there is WP:NOT: Wikipedia writes facts, not "hypes", as your source state it. Fleet Command (talk) 13:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I consider Softpedia to be a reliable source, and it was significant cover (full article). I realize that it is somewhat borderline, and the other two are probably not reliable sources, which is why it is a weak keep, and not just a keep. - EdoDodo talk 14:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, you should study WP:N more carefully: Full article or long article doesn't necessarily means notability. A Softpedia article that designates its own subject as a "hype" is not significant coverage. Now, some sources, on the other hand, grant notability with a single word! For instance, if a person has received a Noble Prize, or if a software has received SourceForge Award, only the appearance of their names in winners list is significant coverage and grants them notability. Fleet Command (talk) 06:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To quote WP:N: "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail." An article about it addresses it directly and as I read it "in detail" is a reference to the length of the mention - so yes, the fact that it is a full article matters because it means that the source is addressing the subject in detail, as required by WP:N. Also, what's wrong with the article saying that it's a "hype"? [4] [5] define the iPhone a hype, does that mean we should delete our article on the iPhone? "Hype" or not, an article is significant coverage - EdoDodo talk 07:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid it seems to me that you have read the WP:N the way wanted it to meant and have only seen whatever you liked to see in it. It says "in details" not "at length". Besides, you are ignoring "Notability is not temporary" completely. Finally, you are ignoring the fact WP:GNG compliance is not the only problem of this article.
However, regardless of all mentioned above, we still need not fling polices at each other and engage in a conversation that consists of putting magnifying glass on words and phrases. Generally speaking, I do not think this so-called “article” merits entering an encyclopedia whose aim is to create and maintain valuable contents for years to come. I consider our conversation to be over.
Fleet Command (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To quote WP:N: "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail." An article about it addresses it directly and as I read it "in detail" is a reference to the length of the mention - so yes, the fact that it is a full article matters because it means that the source is addressing the subject in detail, as required by WP:N. Also, what's wrong with the article saying that it's a "hype"? [4] [5] define the iPhone a hype, does that mean we should delete our article on the iPhone? "Hype" or not, an article is significant coverage - EdoDodo talk 07:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, you should study WP:N more carefully: Full article or long article doesn't necessarily means notability. A Softpedia article that designates its own subject as a "hype" is not significant coverage. Now, some sources, on the other hand, grant notability with a single word! For instance, if a person has received a Noble Prize, or if a software has received SourceForge Award, only the appearance of their names in winners list is significant coverage and grants them notability. Fleet Command (talk) 06:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I consider Softpedia to be a reliable source, and it was significant cover (full article). I realize that it is somewhat borderline, and the other two are probably not reliable sources, which is why it is a weak keep, and not just a keep. - EdoDodo talk 14:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Not a chance in hell. It explicitly violates GNG. It has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Besides, there is WP:NOT: Wikipedia writes facts, not "hypes", as your source state it. Fleet Command (talk) 13:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for now; restore when released. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 01:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like a reasonable solution, since there will probably be a lot more coverage of it once it is released. - EdoDodo talk 07:20, 8 July 2010 (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.