Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CyanogenMod (3rd 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   keep. JForget 00:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

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

See Articles for deletion/CyanogenMod and Articles for deletion/CyanogenMod (2nd nomination). "An article about a minor modification of a minor mobile operating system is in no way notable." Delete.  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 16:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The word "minor" in both cases is horribly subjective. The previous deletion was not based on it being a "minor modification of a minor mobile operating system," but on a lack of major secondary sources, of which there are many, now, thanks to the Google Cease and Desist. Also, Android is in no way minor, and the use of "minor" in relation to Cyanogenmod will have incredibly varying mileage. Keep Mekryd (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep -- I would like to assume good faith here, but calling the Android OS a "minor mobile operating system" is absurd. One only need review the Android article to understand it is not a "minor" mobile OS. According to Gartner, Android, developed by a "minor" Internet company called Google, is projected to be the #2 mobile operating system by 2012, "ahead of the iPhone, as well as Windows  Mobile and BlackBerry  smartphones."  Android is currently offered on at least 20 mobile devices] from carriers T-Mobile US & UK, Verizon, Vodaphone, China Mobile, AT&T, Orange UK, Docomo, and other international mobile companies. (A larger phone list is here.) There are thousands of unique 3rd party articles, tutorials, editorials, and other references to Android online. If this RfD is premised on Android being a "minor mobile operating system", common sense and numerous citations clearly demonstrate otherwise. Cyanogenmod itself has generated substantial mainstream 3rd-party coverage, articles, discussion, and opinion as cited within the article itself. Again, a strong keep. --Replysixty (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have still yet to see any policy cited, or sources that explicitly mention this mod cited. I'd also like to assume good faith, but the above member has only worked on this page and the Drupal page, a borderline WP:SPA. Who are telling you guys to come here and !vote anyway? If it is an email newsletter, I'd love to sign up for it.   TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 13:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "If it is an email newsletter, I'd love to sign up for it." Cry more. I have a hard time believing a user who would immediately assume such a thing or mention it just to spite other users should have any authority in deleting articles. There are only two keep votes, by the way, and quite a few of the sources explicitly mention CyanogenMod (see the Ars Technica link - it's a major article on a major online media outlet that talks about the licensing controversy and mentions Kondik and CyanogenMod throughout). coolbho3000 (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I have to respond to that personal attack. Number one, since creating my account in 2007, I have edited dozens of articles ranging in topic from Eddie Cantor to Asthma to Man of Constant Sorrow to Jinx to B Girls to Beat It to Menelik II of Ethiopia to Ralph Lapp to Ray Bolger to  2009 flu pandemic to Solomon to Suez Crisis, etc. etc.  You would know this if you made even the most cursory investigation.  (Prior to that, I've been editing Wikipedia for years without an account.)  Your account is what, a whole seven months old?  Next- there is no "email newsletter"-- as one of the many contributors to the article in question, I noticed the RfD myself and came here to discuss this issue without anyone's help, thank you. You do know there's a banner right on the article, right?  Third, your easily-dismissed claim that I am "borderline WP:SPA" and baseless suggestion that there is some kind of newsletter that brought me here are as spurious as the cause for this RfD in the first place.  Is it is pointless to respond further to more calls for "sources that explicitly mention this mod cited" as numerous such citations are provided right in the article.  Seriously, when ignorance of ready-available information about such things as Android's notability or media citations for CyanogenMod are used as the excuse for RfDs, followed by bogus accusations of WP:SPA and meatpuppetry, I do start to question your WP:NPOV on this article's topic.  I always assume good faith until demonstrated otherwise, but this smacks of more than just an inability to check easily-verified facts. --Replysixty (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Replysixty had perfectly valid points, yet you ignored all of them, resorting to baseless attacks instead. It is my opinion that the notes on your additions to this page put your attitude and WP:NPOV into question ("*sigh* I knew this would happen" and "and add not a vote for good luck," which you later changed to a delete vote). --coolbho3000 (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In good faith I was shocked to see this article marked for deletion. I thing you will find that CyanogenMod is a significant development in the mobile phone market.  It is perhaps the most popular user compiled open source mobile phone operating system today.  Open source operating systems allow users to view edit and re-compile code, and the CyanogenMod distribution is one of today best examples of this model in action.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.103.66 (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If its such a "minor" mod, then why did Google issue a C&D? Obviously its not minor to the PARENT COMPANY so why should it be considered "minor" on here? There is nothing minor about this rom or the Developer. He's creating and releasing stuff before Google even does. I feel that is pretty significant, no? This is similar to different version of Linux, which there are article about. He's created his own Kernel which is in no way minor. The rate that this page keeps coming up for deletion makes it seem like someone is jealous. Wikipedia is for the people right? If this page keeps coming back, doesn't that show what the people want?76.10.32.122 (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep As the admin who restored the article from its deleted state a few weeks back, let me say that I had no knowledge of CyanogenMod until I came across comments expressing sorrow that this article was deleted. I took some time to look into it and researched the topic, only to discover that this is a notable subject that meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Very soon after recreating the article, other editors took over and vastly improved the article. The notability of an article topic is unimportant, only that it is notable, based on credible sources. The article has credible sources, and clear claims to notability. I wouldn't say the same about the two previously deleted versions. The editor who opened this AfD would also do well to avoid the personal attacks and simply stick to discussing the facts. Are there other articles, in addition to this one, which you would like to see restored? I'm personally willing to look into any deleted article and restore it if an editor can make a reasonable argument towards notability backed up by sources. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been a Wikipedia editor since 2005, and this article has been interesting to follow and learn how Notability works in practice. I think the article should be kept because CyanogenMod is one of the primary Android variants, and is notable not only because it received some press a while back regarding a Google Cease and Desist letter about the proprietary components. The article is well referenced (significant coverage, reliable sources) and provides a useful independent resource for information regarding the emerging phone OS. I don't see any examples of original research on the page. The sources already used in the article, while not printed, have precedent as reliable: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_2, and PC World seems to be assumed a reliable source in these discussions. Are Heise Online or Maximum PC considered reliable? To my knowledge, Steve Kondik (the primary developer) is not the primary author of the article (independent of the subject). It does not appear to violate anything from what Wikipedia is not. I don't understand why this article keeps getting nominated for deletion, could deletion proponents please explain precisely and in detail why it should be deleted? -kslays (talk • contribs) 21:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One more thing, regarding the delete proposal quote above, CyanogenMod is probably the #1 modification of Android, hardly "minor." I wouldn't call Android minor either, and would hazard a guess that it is more widely heard of among the American public than Symbian (or at least with random people I meet that I happen to bring up both with), even though it has dramatically lower distribution. -kslays (talk • contribs) 21:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This is in several independent sources. meeting the notability requirements. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Significant coverage in independent reliable sources = notable.  Triplestop  x3  23:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Strongly agree with the two parent comments. In addition, calling CyanogenMod a "minor modification," and Android a "minor operating system," are gross misunderstandings of both.  If we're going to invoke any policy, let's start with WP:IMPERFECT.  VoxLuna (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep We surely have precendence for keeping this article - I see no-one arguing about whether or not the article on the iPhone Jailbreak should be deleted or not. This is surely very similar to jailbreaking an iPhone, so why delete this article if you're not going to delete the Jailbreak article? Bolmedias (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see the page regarding your argument  Triplestop  x3  22:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine...but I still think that the page should be kept. Before the Google C&D, I might have argued otherwise, but that C&D order has made this page relevant. Bolmedias (talk) 10:50, 11 December 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.