Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of iOS jailbreaking


 * 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   Author close. EBE!@# talkContribs 21:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

History of iOS jailbreaking

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Page made by WP:SPLIT but not with consensus. EBE!@# talkContribs 20:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SPLIT, consensus was not required to split the article (If an article meets the criteria for splitting, editors can be bold and carry out the split.) No reason is given for the deletion of this page.  As I stated on Talk:IOS jailbreaking, That one section alone made the article too long to comfortably navigate. That one section being half of the entire article's size makes it a logical choice for splitting, removing it made the article a comfortable length. - SudoGhost 20:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How about List of The Simpsons couch gags? That article is over 120 bytes long.  EBE!@#  talkContribs 20:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It doesn't matter how long that article is. - SudoGhost 20:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:SPLIT. The article was around 64kb, which split says probably should be divided.  Moving just that one section split the article's size in half, to around 31kb, which split says length alone does not justify division, meaning the article's size is good.  As the entire section was about the history, and moving that made the split article as large (actually a bit larger) than the original article, the split article being too small is not an issue, and covers a specific topic, the history of the jailbreak updates, leaving the original article to cover all of the non-historical topics.  The history article is linked in the original, so interested readers are able to view the information, but readers not interested in historical information don't have to scroll through an entire second article's worth of data.  This is the reason it was split, as I see it as a logical move. - SudoGhost 20:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2011 (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.