Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenpois0n


 * 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. Appears to meet WP:N, and headcount follows that. Wily D 10:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Greenpois0n

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This product does not appear to have significant independent secondary coverage. There is very limited coverage in brief passing for example "such as greenpois0n", press release derivatives and vast number of duplicate recycled sources that gets omitted in Google News search, but it does not appear that there is significant coverage and information in current article is based almost entirely on user generated contents from a wiki based source. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lack of independant coverage indicates it isn't a notable product. 1292simon (talk) 12:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article isn't in good shape, but the subject seems notable. Note that I have a self-disclosed COI on jailbreaking-related articles. Some available sources:
 * September 2010 PCWorld article, October 2010 NetworkWorld article, and another October 2010 NetworkWorld article about the upcoming Greenpois0n jailbreak.
 * October 2010 Ars Technica article, October 2010 Wired article, October 2010 TUAW article, and October 2010 PCWorld article about the Greenpois0n jailbreak. October 2010 PC Mag article and October 2010 ReadWriteWeb article comparing Greenpois0n to another jailbreak.
 * February 2011 Wired article, February 2011 Register article, February 2011 TUAW article, February 2011 PCWorld article, and another February 2011 PCWorld article about an updated version of the Greenpois0n jailbreak. Dreamyshade (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment When I searched Google news, this source came up, and the rest were hidden and though I didn't audit each source, the snippet view looked strikingly similar and perhaps Google's consolidation indicates derivative contents? I've read some of your sources and I noticed that some are things like "via twitter... developer announced that". Reviewing Notability Criteria those references appear to fall under routine coverage of "simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued,".
 * routine announcements:
 * "The Chronic Dev team of eager iOS hackers at GreenPois0n has announced an untethered jailbreak ....."
 * "The Chronic Dev Team, set to launch its greenpois0n jailbreak tool on 10/10/10...." and so on and on.
 * "via Wired" this is re-blog of a rather trivial coverage.
 * Now, notability usually means multiple, in-depth independent coverage and not mere re-tweet and in-depth coverage. Not just "via Wired". or "it announced..."
 * Please also see general notability guideline, which states "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." -Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'll refrain from discussing the sources to give other editors a chance to look at them independently. I'm working on a a new version of this article as a proposed draft on Talk:Greenpois0n, combining the existing subject with the related subject at Absinthe (software); that article can be redirected if this AFD is closed as keep. Also, before this AFD nomination, this article only had tags noting referencing and technical language issues (not notability issues); WP:BEFORE says "If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag". Dreamyshade (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Re That one doesn't look like it warrants its own article own either. Wikipedia is not a repository of any and every products and companies on the face of earth. I feel that this deletion nomination is reasonable per our nomination guidelines Cantaloupe2 (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Re, #2 I believe WP:GOOGLEHITS is of relevance here. What I'm seeing is a collection of routine, announcement of product release, rebroadcast of one source by another and a collection of trivial mentions.  Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)




 * Weak Keep: it does seem to be somewhat notable as a jailbreaking tool, but it does seem to be lacking decent references in the article. Many news articles are in languages other than English, there are some reasonably notable sources such as http://www.businessinsider.com/it-took-a-long-time-for-hackers-to-jailbreak-the-ipad-2-and-iphone-4s-2012-1 this] and a lot of references in technical sites which are often cited as being reliable in this topic area. The article does seem too technical though, I certainly don't think it needs to go into that much depth, but it should include more background information about the tools and developers IMO. Shritwod (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. User:PiRSquared17 just implemented my talk page draft, so now the article is much different. It has less technical detail (since I couldn't find secondary sources for that information), more independent sources, and a new section about the related Absinthe tools. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Re It would appear that much of addition consists of matters that do not help establish notability as they're aggregation of routine trivial mentions and announcements like "Absinthe 2.0 Jailbreak Now Available for iOS 5.1.1 Devices". MacLife. Retrieved December 18, 2012." WP:ORGDEPTH is the policy I am referencing to in this specific comment. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Here's what I said on the talk page, since it seems relevant for this deletion discussion: These articles aren't ideal, but they include details about the software and its development. WP:N also says "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." It has multiple independent sources. And WP:N says "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." I did not have to do original research to write this article; it's based on independent sources that address the subject. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Re:ReBut it doesn't say that small fragments of highly trivial pieces can be aggregated together and in the list of specific exclusions "simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued" is one of them, which includes but not exclusive to "oh hai t3h greenp0ison absinthe came out" Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Here's the list of selected articles I posted on the talk page that I considered more than routine/trivial coverage. I know you weren't convinced by them, but this may be useful to other editors looking at this discussion: Ars Technica on background information, NetworkWorld on background information and more background information, PCMag on background information, Wired discussing the release. And for the sub-topic of Greenpois0n Absinthe: International Business Times on background information, CNet discussing the release, VentureBeat discussing the release, PCWorld discussing the release. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Source Commment PCWorld "The new jailbreak, dubbed Absinthe and part of the Chronic Dev Team's GreenPois0n jailbreak tool, arrives about 10 months after the first A5 device, the iPad 2, hit store shelves. " is a routine announcement. Shouldn't really be admitted. further comments  be added as I screen each source. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. That article and the others include multiple paragraphs with detail, not just trivial/routine coverage. Are you applying a more stringent standard to these references because I'm a COI editor? WP:COI says "Requested edits are subject to the same editorial standards as any other," and Template:Request edit/COIinstructions says "Avoid excessively high or low expectations. The quality of content from a request edit only needs to be comparable to our expectations from an average volunteer and be an improvement to the article." I know this isn't the same situation as evaluating a requested edit, but I think those recommendations are useful to consider. Dreamyshade (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Re to comment though I may pay closer to attention to whats inserted for a WP:COI editor because there's a often a natural tendency to be partial,but no, I apply same standards to how I scrutinize sources. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Significant coverage in many reliable sources. -—Kvng 03:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * comment which ones do you consider significant? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , , , , , and . -—Kvng 19:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage in multiple different sorts of types of varying sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - the sources listed above demonstrate notability, including PCWorld.   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 02:02, 11 January 2013 (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.