Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CyanogenMod (2nd nomination)


 * 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. This is a textbook case of WP:NOTAVOTE. Naturally, I all but discounted the votes from SPAs that were clearly canvassed via off-wiki forums. The arguments provided by these users are almost entirely non-existent or exceptionally weak in nature, especially those that do nothing but accuse others of "deletionism". That said, there are some valid keep votes, but these aren't very persuasive, either. Many could be classified as WP:ITSNOTABLE, where there is no explanation as to why the subject is notable, but rather a hollow claim that it is. On the other hand, the arguments for deletion, while few, are backed up by relevant policies and guidelines. Without coverege in secondary, reliable sources, we cannot include an article on this forum, regardless of its popularity amongst members. I can therefore conclude that the appropriate course of action is to delete this page in accordance with consensus here and notability guidelines. Just as a note, I did close the previous discussion, but only from a procedural point of view; therefore I believe I am neutral enough to review this AfD. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

CyanogenMod
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I see little to no coverage in external reliable sources. The previous AfD was closed early after a sockflood, but that has never been a reason to keep an unworthy article.Of the existing links on the page, one has nothing to do with the firmware, the second is a how-to blog/forum post, and the third is yet another forum. The External Links are also a lovely collection of fora, yet aren't enough to make this article pass the WP:GNG. Let's not reward socking and disruptive behaviour. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep (update: or Merge) Since the first deletion attempt the article has improved and become more encyclopedic (as opposed to a feature list). Others will argue about notability and citations below, while not strong it is not some 'lone wolf' project, and has a respectable number of both contributors and audience. While the project is ongoing there is no good reason to delete, or to attempt to delete. I strongly suspect the proposers of these deletion attempt are motivated more by technical elitism and a fanboi motivated desire to bury the 'competition' than any real desire to improve Wikipedia. EasyTarget (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I came across this article when going through the log of AfD's for the 11 September, where I happened to notice this AfD flooded with single purpose accounts and a no consensus closure. With my curiosity piqued, I looked over this article and did not find any mentions in reliable sources. How great this may or may not be is irrelevant to its notability; but it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As an aside note, the fanboi rhetoric is particularly inaccurate - as anyone who has talked to me before will attest, I certainly not a technical elite. ;) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The fanboy and elitist comments were not directed at you per say, but rather at the attitude displayed by a few here when they come across anything that they do not think is notable, or interferes in their comfy world order.. one of 'Oh quick, we have to delete this now before it becomes popular or properly cited'. A belief that is illustrated at the speed of the original AFD and way it was closed because the proposer was not immediately getting their way. Lack of notability is always cited as a reason to delete pages on new projects and I can't be bothered with the circular debates it causes. I'd rather leave an article and then delete it in six months if the article and project really has gone nowhere. I will always default to having too much info in Wikipedia over having too little.
 * The 'Oh noes! people are canvassing outside wikipedia' argument is facile, those users have accounts and are entitled to contribute to AFD's irrespective of how they heard about this, those users took the time to add their votes and arguments and then were effectively dismissed. If the argument for deletion was so strong, why close the debate before others could also come in on the 'for' side? The AFD appears to have been closed for tactical reasons, nothing else.
 * Having said that, this is still a relatively minor project.. so I think merging to either a separate Android Mods page, or merging into the Android main article is also acceptable, and does indeed match how some other mods are handled. I'd also support either of them and have updated the above accordingly. EasyTarget (talk)
 * Delete or merge if anything is necessary. Mods are rarely given their own page as they are not notable and are only alterations of something that, if there is notability, would have its own page. No need for a separate page. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be saying that were it notable it would have its own page, so its page should be deleted because you believe it not to be notable. This seems terribly circular. HelDC (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I was looking for this info and checked wikipedia for it and found it. I don't see why it should be deleted. Akubhai (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Lacks independent notability  Chzz  ►  20:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Lacks independent notability  Chzz  ►  21:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Well, that's two for Chzz. Anyway, CyanogenMod is notable as a popular distribution of the Android-based OS, similar to how Ubuntu and Debian are notable distributions of Linux-kernel based OSes. The OS has been much-noted by independent secondary sources ranging from reviews to how-to-pages to news stories to tech blogs to podcasts, including MaximumPC, Androinica, Android And Me, TMO Today, AndroidSPIN, The Hippest Phones, FutureCrue, Phandroid, and others.  The community-built and run CyanogenMod.com reports they've had over 100K visitors in less than four weeks.  Popularity aside, CyanogenMod is also notable for its much-discussed optimizations, development, and experimentation with new technologies, some of which (BFS for example) have been adopted into the mainline Google Android distribution.   The article was proposed to be speedy-deleted back when it was simply a half-assed copy/paste job someone did of the release notes.  However, the article is very different now.  Not perfect, but a good start and still evolving.  EasyTarget is right.  There seems to be a kneejerk reaction to pull an article before it has a chance.  The campaign to delete this article has tinges of elitism, status quoism, and tech bias, which is somewhat expected given the intense competition between, and fanboiism for, mobile phone platforms.  But the key question that needs to be answered is whether this topic is worthy of notice-- and the answer is a resounding "yes".  The OS is a popular distribution for a fast-growing platform, and this article is helpful to the interested lay reader.  In full disclosure, I am a user of CyanogenMod.  However, I am not one of its developers, nor am I affiliated with any of the media mentioned previously that has been covering it-- except as an occasional poster to the xda-developers forum. --Replysixty (talk) 07:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep What kind of source would be considered reliable by the deletistas? In spite of its young age, this Android distribution has been covered in a number of places as noted above. It is the most notable distribution of Android that is actually community-driven, rather than carrier-driven. The most documented instance of Android not being just another corporate phone firmware but being an open-source project that empower actual users seems like a worthwhile thing to keep in the records. Beside that, I'd like to see the "Delete" proponents make a cogent argument for it that goes beyond ignoring the many articles covering the topic. 66.68.113.5 (talk) 09:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC) — 66.68.113.5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

And for your information: The main distribution and development feedback channel for CyanogenMod is a forum, so complaining that that forum is then cited in the article doesn't make much sense. 217.95.124.100 (talk) 13:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC) — 217.95.124.100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Many deadtree and electronic publications all reference Cyanogen's mod and recovery image in relation to rooting android (Replysixty links some both virtual and "real", a google search for android cyanogen root returns about 24,300 results, the first 100 unique results all appearing at a cursory examination to be on topic). Cyanogen's recovery image is the default image installed by all of the one click rooting scripts/apps I am aware of (8,850 google hits for android one click root cyanogen). That seems very notable to me, but including this information in the article would for the most part detract from the informational value of the article. So, the article is caught in a catch-22. It's not notable because it doesn't reference enough external links, but if external links are added, I suspect someone would come along and complain the article wasn't encyclopedic enough. HelDC (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC) — HelDC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I frequently typo edit psychology articles, as well as any articles I happen to be reading and see a typo in, but never bother to sign in to do so. I signed in to contribute to the discussion here because it's *gasp* something I think is useful&important. :) HelDC (talk)
 * Keep Android of course is notable (despite the insinuations that were posted on the discussion page to the contrary). Cyanogen is by far the most popular 3rd-party distribution of the android operating system.  It might not be commonly mentioned in the major press, but this isn't surprising since it is fairly technical in nature, and it lacks commercial sponsorship.  Apparently major corporations like T-Mobile have taken notice, as they've had to specifically modify their software to remove incompatibilities with 3rd-party firmwares (of which Cyanogenmod is probably the most common).  They wouldn't do this if it were something of interest to only a handful of their customers.  Considering the open-source license was one of the most significant features of the Android OS, and Cyanogenmod is the natural consequence of such a license, it seems natural to include it on WP.  I'd like to additionally point out that Cyanogen really isn't a mod per-se - it is more of a distribution.  Typically a mod is some kind of binary patch that is applied to another software product.  Cyanogenmod is actually a built-from-sources distribution of the Android OS (with the inclusion of some 3rd-party software as well).  Cyanogen is no more a "mod" of Android than Ubuntu is a mod of linux/binutils/bash/GNU/etc.  If we were just talking about a patch I could see more of a case for a merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich0 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep Some of the changes made by Cyanogen have made it into mainline and there's plenty of coverage on tech sites. And frankly, the reason for the first request for deletion was "It's not like this is the iPhone. It's just yet another Apple ripoff like Windows and Linux." I don't understand, why this was even reopened. You don't want to reward disruptive behaviour? When why do you indulge the blatant apple fanboi that requested the deletion in the first place? Also, I'd personally rather not be called as a sockpuppet when I voice my own honest opinion. It's insulting. Make your argument without that, or don't make it at all.
 * Comment: I have still not seen significant coverage in reliable sources. If it is a notable mod, then I would expect to see more coverage than blog posts and forums! Preaching about how good it is out it's notability without giving reasons why is useless, and dismissing this as fanboiism ridiculous. Is there any coverage in a reputable source? \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You want the article gone, go ahead and delete it. I won't waste any more time on this. It's pretty clear already, what the "consensus" will be. 217.95.124.100 (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What would you consider to be a reliable source for something computer related other than computer related magazines, websites, podcasts, etc? HelDC (talk)
 * Keep Why do you think a single person/author of some reputed website is a "reliable source" and thousand of people on a forum are not. Just look at the number of comments/people on the forum's thread. This OS was covered on CNET, made it to the front page of Digg.com virdi (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: I don't quite see what deems "Significant Coverage in reliable sources, Wikipedia is supposed to be a encyclopedia, based on a website where anyone can see information and add to it as they see relevant, with in reason. Is this going to make it into a IRL encyclopedia? Probably not. Has it had wide coverage across the internet? Quite so.  As mentioned before, that it has received coverage on a multitude of sites, most that have been advertised or promoted through the usage of the social site, Digg.com, where a broad number of users can see it.  I don't see how, at this point, it differs from any variation of Linux having its own page.  The mod certainly fits the build, kernel mods, data optimization, even some of his work is now going to be in android proper with the next release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Systm117 (talk • contribs)  — Systm117 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep: I don't know if you consider CNET, Digg, Lifehacker, Hackaday, MaximPC and other websites as reliable sources. I will include these websites in the main article. virdi (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Another collection of blogs and blog comments. Was CyanogenMod ever mentioned in a magazine, a newspaper or something similar? \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * MaximumPC's mention may be on its blog, but it's still a magazine, isn't it? Just curious, 'cause Wikipedia's notion of notability seems to shift.  (I.E. For anime/video games, I hardly ever see people demanding newspaper articles, rather than the odd anime blog post, for citation/proof of 'notability').  Mekryd (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Newspapers and magazines move at glacial speed. Lifehacker and CNET are not chopped liver. You can't just dismiss them like that, especially when we're talking about a technology related entry like this. This insistence on dead-tree mainstream media is ridiculous.Joshuas88 (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If WP:GNG is not satisfied in a few months, then re-list. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Does anyone else think the MaximumPC article puts this over? / edg ☺ ☭ 01:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Oi, as per above, I'm fairly certain MaximumPC counts as, at least, a semi-reliable source.  They've got an article that hasn't been put up for deletion by some random non-user with a Apple fanboy fetish (the original AfD article, not this one =P).  I would have helped clean this up, but as you can see, I've not really done much in Wikipedia in a while.  Other bits of my life, online and off, have gotten in the way. Mekryd (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: This "mod" has been mentioned by many others and is one of the few modifications that offer significant improvements and notoriety because of the enhancements on speed, usability and functionality. This page has much content and will be infinitely more useful to first time visitors looking for resources on how to exact nature of Google's Android mobile operating systems. As other users have mentioned this mod has been featured and/or featured in many notable sources. Peterto (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC) — Peterto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep: This mod is notable if only because of the attention that it has drawn to BFS. (The current article doesn't mention this, but imho, it should). joeyo (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: I vote keep since I've seen this project mentioned so many times while reading about Android. I consider a high number of votes on sites such as reddit.com and digg.com is a sign of notability just as being mentioned in mainstream media is a sign of notability. Todays Digg front pages least voted for article has 666 votes (or as they call it "diggs"). There is a Digg article http://digg.com/mods/Android_G1_CyanogenMod_v4_0_1_Stable_for_G1_myTouch that is about a new version of Cyanogen being released that got 722 votes. I therefore consider this project to be notable enough for Wikipedia. Tommy (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Diggs are not and will never be a measure of notability. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What about other links in the ref list below. Diggs are a measure of popularity though.
 * I have removed that. Reflist does not belong in AFDs. Joe Chill (talk) 10:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 10:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Canvass page 1 (dead now) and 2. Joe Chill (talk) 10:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Wouldn't it make sense to consider that this is inherently a web-related article and would thus primarily be covered by websites and not print sources? Several notable blogs/websites have already been put forth. Cyanogen is not going anywhere and is only going to become more relevant as time goes on.Joshuas88 (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: I think that makes sense. Considering this a web related article prominent on different websites (if not so in the print media), it is significant and only going to increase in popularity and coverage on the internet/print media. I leave the rest to the consensus virdi (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The consensus is to delete because all of the keeps don't cite any guideline and go against WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, many of the keeps have been making points aimed at showing independent, secondary-sources, reliable sources, which is the point of contention for this afd, as best as anyone can figure. Those points are based on existing notability guidelines. Putting a link to those known guidelines shouldn't be a condition for those points to be valid or not. Now, the "delete" folks consider apparently those sources to be insufficient. Since they are provably independent and secondary, their only leg to stand is to question how "reliable" they are, I suppose. We now have a friendly admin asking for dead-tree sources, which seems like an unusually strong requirement that hasn't been applied to many other "pure-technology" topics. Still, I'm willing to assume good faith in spite of having been tagged as "single purpose account" which I'm sure has no bearing on other people's assumption of my good faith or blind disregard of my points. So, should we pokemonize this AfD and find a few dozen of wikipedia articles on technological topics that haven't been covered in dead-trees yet are considered noteworthy and sufficiently sourced by online references only, or would our local friendly admin like to refine his noteworthiness criteria? — 66.68.113.5 (talk • contribs) has made few edits outside this topic, yet his points should be taken into account. 66.68.113.5 (talk)
 * Actually, the delete arguments are stronger. All of you canvassers are only posting sources that verify it, but don't show notability and that it's useful. Reliable sources are allowed, but not ones without significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for attempting to better define the thinking behind the "Delete" votes. I'm a little new to this, as has been pointed out, so bear with me here. The meat of the WG:N link everyone is throwing around says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I don't see anything about requiring the sources themselves to say "it's notable" or "it's useful". I also don't understand what definition of "significant coverage" you're using that lets you claim it doesn't apply to the sources given here. If you'd like me to summarize those sources for you to make it easier to digest, I'll do so, but I'm hoping it's not necessary. Now, as I understand it, if we can in fact get a fact-based consensus around the documented existence of several independent secondary reliable sources in which CyanogenMod was given significant coverage, that still doesn't guarantee the inclusion criteria, but merely presumes to satisfy it. Again, I would be very interested in hearing of a reasonable argument that would justify a "Delete" vote. Maybe something from WP:NOT? — 66.68.113.5 (talk • contribs) is a handsome fellow who can get quite sensitive about the fact that he has made few edits outside this topic. 66.68.113.5 (talk)
 * Perhaps we canvassers should start then: WP:AGF WP:EQ. Also thanks for deleting the list of references because they don't belong here before claiming that no references are cited, while also ignoring the references that are cited elsewhere. It makes it easier to illustrate your obvious bias without resorting to citing your own user page.217.95.114.56 (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Canvassers are what all or most of you are. I even posted proof of that. I never said that no references was cited. I said that none of them was significant coverage. The reference do belong here. All that I said that is that reflist doesn't belong here because it is for articles. I hate it when users twist my comments around. Joe Chill (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny enough that you complain about websites not being reliable sources, but "proof" your own point using a single tweet. Talk about bias.217.95.114.56 (talk) 01:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have that, the previous AFD, and all of the single purpose accounts. I never said that they weren't reliable. I said that they weren't significant coverage. By the way, how did you hear of this AFD? Joe Chill (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why, I got the link, when I got paid to come here and canvas, how else would I hear of it? It's not as if it was advertised by a giant sign at the top of the article or something.217.95.114.56 (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's hard to believe it with all of these single purpose accounts in this AFD and the one before it. It's especially hard to believe when you are an IP that knows a lot about policies. Joe Chill (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's your standard of "knowing a lot", you should consider ceasing contributions. 217.95.114.56 (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You should consider showing what your account is or I'll start a WP:SPI. Joe Chill (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Joe Chill (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Now I'm scared. Btw, have you ever read WP:NOASSUMESOCK? It's amazing, what you stumble upon if you actually read the policies, everyone's always talking about.217.95.114.56 (talk) 02:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice essay. Joe Chill (talk) 02:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "All you canvassers." That's not cool.  I am not a single purpose account, and I frankly find your reactions and name-calling however crossed out they may be, to be more silly than any point brought up here.  Of course you find the for-deletion arguments more valid than the Keep ones!  You made them!  If you thought otherwise, you wouldn't have taken that side.  I'm still curious as to why Maximum PC doesn't seem count as a reliable source. Mekryd (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree.  This "all you canvassers" name calling is inappropriate.  Certain guidelines regarding assumptions of good faith apply here.  Furthermore, there is no need for chapter-and-verse quotes from WP's policy when those policies are being followed.  Nevertheless, for the benefit of those who suspect that I am one of "all you canvassers" who apparently reacted in lockstep to a random tweet I never saw...  (1) I posted after seeing the gigantic banner on the page, (2) I listed more than half a dozen independent, reliable, secondary-sources to establish notability.  Others have provided many additional examples- and no, that's not counting forum posts, diggs, etc. (3) I am not using a "single-purpose" account.   As mentioned below, the goal of Wikipedia is to create a summary of all human knowledge.  Those who have argued for deletion have cited two criteria-- a lack of notability and a lack of secondary sources.  Numerous write ups in the electronic media ranging from reviews to how-tos to news stories to interviews etc have been cited, and both criteria are clearly met.  Dead-tree media is an absurd requirement that goes unfulfilled without controversy for comparable articles about modified firmware distributions including Tomato, HyperWRT, Nintendo DS homebrew, Gargoyle Router Firmware, or IPodLinux.  The uneven-handed treatment of this article in relation to other similar articles and in opposition to evidence and common sense smacks either of general resistance to the expansion of Wikipedia itself or fanboiism towards particular mobile OSs.  And because both noteworthiness and secondary sources are provided, there is little left for some deletionists to discuss except to question the motives of the participants and devalue their opinions.  May I remind everyone that contributions to the discussion should be evaluated on merit, not whether someone are posting from an IP or a newly created account.  That "single purpose" posters are being devalued by an editor who has had their account for a whole five months is especially revealing.  --Replysixty (talk) 06:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this "discussion" is getting a little off-track and looks more like a debate than a discussion. Remember, we need to assume good faith and work towards agreement. The basic motivation/purpose of Wikipedia is to create a summary of all human knowledge and advancement of free flow of that knowledge. This article may be of great importance and significance to a lot of people (hackers and kernel engineers) and it pose no threat to those who don't consider it important or significant. The world will not cease to exist if the article is not on Wikipedia. If it stays on Wikipedia, nobody's going to get hurt as I was never hurt by an article on Japanese Toilets or any other  Unusual Article. So, don't spend all your energies here. There are other important things to do to make this world a better place. We should carry on the discussions, but with good spirits. virdi (talk) 04:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your number of stars makes this a reply to my comment. yay :) Err, I mean I pretty much agree entirely with your points. Sorry if I'm coming across as needlessly argumentative, I'm a n00b who's mostly trying to understand the motivation behind the delete votes, as that'll help me figure out what I'm missing with my current interpretation of WG:N. — 66.68.113.5 (talk • contribs) is a 10" tall amphibian who has made few edits outside this topic. 66.68.113.5 (talk)
 * keep - The article could do with some more references, but I think CyanogenMod is a notable distribution (being one of the most popular third party Android builds). Also, the previous AfD appears to boil down to "it isn't notable because it isn't the iPhone" which (IMHO) makes it bunk so should not be considered as part of this AfD. FireFury (talk) 08:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete while it is trivially easy to verify the existence of CyanogenMod, I cannot find coverage in independent third-party reliable sources, even though I've searched google, yahoo, and the websites of all the mobile handset magazines I can find (not one of which has any coverage). So, despite how popular it appears to be, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are clear that if something has not received significant coverage in reliable, third party sources it does not get a Wikipedia article. Thryduulf (talk) 09:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Most widely-used Android variant. Easily passes notability criteria — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.65.210 (talk) — 96.224.65.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * As the Notability criteria does not mention anything to do with how widespread use is, and require "significant coverage in reliable third-party sources", please could you explain exactly how this article passes the notability criteria given that nobody has found any such coverage? Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, per WP:IMPERFECT I guess. I'm sparse on policy arguments here, and I acknowledge this article was created prematurely, perhaps for promotional purposes. However, this seems to be a worthy subject (as far as third-party mods of Android go), and the logical merge target article (Android (operating system), in lieu of a well-formed, well-sourced "Android community based firmware" spinoff) is overlong.
 * Userfy. On second thought, the hunt for sources can occur while this resides in userspace&mdash;if this many single-purpose editors can be rallied for Keep votes, then volunteers already exist to discover significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources when they come into being. Request return to article space when WP:GNG is satisfied. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * we can keep it for now and keep adding more coverage to article as and when it happens. If that's not doable, and I can't think why, it's always welcome in my user space. virdi (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This debate seems to be tilting towards the deletes, and they are making a lot more cogent arguments. Most of the keepers are just railing against perceived slights by "deletistas" and iPhone "fanbois". Ugh. And while there are also occasional mentions on more "notable" sites like androidandme.com, but I haven't seen many on independent news sites yet (though the article has an Engadget reference). So to the people arguing Delete, what I have to say to you is, the very nature of this project is why most of the discussion is still taking place primarily on forums and blog posts.  This is a grassroots and open source project known only to people with Android phones that have the courage and knowhow to alter their phone.  That's a niche.  But it is a profoundly new way for people to interact with their mobile devices.  There is nothing else like it out there among phones sold by major carriers.  It is leading the way.  Despite lack of major notable sources, the project itself is extremely notable.  While it sucks that only a relatively small niche is acquainted with the reasons why the project is so notable, you don't need to be a CyanogenMod or Android user to understand why it's important.  Give the project a chance, and allow a little more latitude in your interpretation of WP:NOTABLE. Klondike (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your argument seems to be "I know this isn't notable but believe me when I tell you it is notable". If you think it should be kept, please show how we can verify the article from independent third party reliable sources. Your statement that "This is a grassroots and open source project known only to people with Android phones that have the courage and knowhow to alter their phone." seems to be a very good definition of a project that is not notable enough for a general purpose encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't entirely disagree with Klondike's keep reasons. However, there have been (during this AfD at least) several attempts to find significant independent coverage, and we have not come up with the WP:GNG-satifactory goods. While I can imagine many niche interests not well-served by reliable sources, there are certainly reputable online sources for hackers and open-source advocates&mdash;if CyanogenMod is this popular, there should be a Hacking your Android device with CyanogenMod article in ARStechnica, Engadget or something similar. This is why I suggest userfication for now. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There are How-to hack articles on MaximPC magazine's website and CNET and others in a comment above. I am sure they are as good as ARStechnica. Maybe not. virdi (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. The CNET article just mentions it in passing; that doesn't make a case for notability. However, page 5 of the MaximumPC article includes a write-up on CyanogenMod, and describes it as "[a]rguably the most popular third-party mod out there"&mdash;that's pretty good. Significant? I'm not sure.
 * I don't get it. CNET noting it "in passing" makes it notable, does it not?  I still don't understand the claim that a CNET or Maximum PC is necessary anyway.  It's certainly not for similar articles which remain unchallenged and non-controversial, some of which I referred to above.  As for "railing against perceived slights by "deletistas" and iPhone "fanbois"", may I remind you that the original comment in the first AfD read as follows:  "It's not like this is the iPhone. It's just yet another Apple ripoff like Windows and Linux."  That is not good-faith editing.  --Replysixty (talk) 03:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed about that not being good-faith editing, and that initial attempt to delete the article was crap. It pissed me off, and is what got me to ask others to join me in pushing back.  But that was then, and this is now -- this deletion request is a lot more serious. Klondike (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't get it, you haven't read something. The full extent of the CNET mention is as follows:"I recently spoke with Steve Kondik (aka Cyanogen) who has released his own customized builds of Android. He told me that Donut builds were [...]"This is not significant coverage, and does not demonstrate WP:Notability for CyanogenMod. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * References cited so far in this discussion: CNET, Digg, Lifehacker, Hackaday, MaximPCMaximumPC, Androinica, Android And Me, TMO Today, AndroidSPIN, The Hippest Phones, FutureCrue, Phandroidand other websites virdi (talk) 03:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And they don't really need to be reposted.
 * Neither CNET article is about CyanogenMod, or even mentions it by name
 * The Hackaday link mentions CyanogenMod’s Recovery Image, but make no reference to CyanogenMod at all. Please do not just throw up every link that mentions Cyanogen as proof that CyanogenMod meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. This just wastes everyone's (by which I mean my) time. It is not likely to get you want you want.
 * Self-published sources such as forums or Digg are not considered reliable.
 * AndroidSPIN Developer Homepage for Cyanogen is also self-published.
 * The Hippest Phones, like the CNET link, mentions Cyanogen but says nothing about CyanogenMod.
 * I give up. You seem to be ignoring all notability guidelines. Please don't bombard AfD with trivial mentions in hope they demonstrate notability. Please read Notability and Reliable sources if you haven't already. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * edg, it's really difficult to argue that CyanogenMod meets any strict interpretation of WP:NOTABLE. But I don't subscribe to a strict interpretation of WP:NOTABLE - if something has this much importance, but whose sources are limited to lots and lots of below-the-reputable-line sources, then WP:NOTABLE needs to be either revised to include things of this nature, or simply treated with more latitude. Klondike (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * edg, it's really difficult to argue that CyanogenMod meets any strict interpretation of WP:NOTABLE. But I don't subscribe to a strict interpretation of WP:NOTABLE - if something has this much importance, but whose sources are limited to lots and lots of below-the-reputable-line sources, then WP:NOTABLE needs to be either revised to include things of this nature, or simply treated with more latitude. Klondike (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - appears notable and well sourced to me. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Cyanogen recently got a cease and desist. There may suddenly be a lot more news coverage. joeyo (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Ubuntu is not a section of the Linux article. It has its own page. This is analogous. Zacqary Adam Green (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Very Strong Keep: CyanogenMod is by far the most widely used and updated Android ROM on the market.  Not keeping this diminishes Wikipedia's credibility as well as it would be super gay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.54.242 (talk • contribs)  — 66.49.54.242 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep - Has become much more notable with additional coverage about Google sending a cease-and-desist. Affects open-source development on the Android platform in general, as this is the first time Google has specifically targeted a single developer over designing for their line of "Google Experience" phones. This may cause development for Android in general shift in a new direction. Discussion on creating a Google-free Android system is pushed further in the "yes" direction...which is also significant. --Eris Siva (talk) 06:13, 25 September 2009 (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.