Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CASUAL


 * 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.  Sandstein  06:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

CASUAL

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Contested WP:PROD. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling turns up nothing useful, suggesting the sources simply don't exist. It's possible the software is too new but so significant that many sources may soon appear, easily establishing notability for a future article. But unfortunately, WP is not a WP:CRYSTAL ball. Currently, the sources do not exist. Msnicki (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Msnicki (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, you can google search "CASUAL Motofail" if you would like to add sources. Or i can move this page to the XDA-Developers.com wiki. Its rather popular for a beta test. You can find thr source code in the open-source repositorry. Its only been released for motorola devices thus far.

You tell me what i should do. Im a developer, not a writer.

--Outleradam (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

http://www.xda-developers.com/android/casual-motorola-razr-root-method-unlike-any-other/ --Outleradam (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lacks the significant coverage required to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)




 * Delete. There seems to be no significant coverage in reliable sources.  Following the article author's recommendation of a google search for "CASUAL Motofail" did not turn up anything that we would consider reliable third-party coverage.  (As far as I can tell, the only hits are forum posts, aggregation sites, and similar.)  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2012 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.