Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redsn0w


 * 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.-- Kubigula (talk) 05:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Redsn0w

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete. This may be notable, but I'm not seeing it; to be fair, I do see some blog coverage of this but nothing in what I would consider to be a reliable third party publication. I'll keep an open mind. JBsupreme ( talk ) 07:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Here is Washington Post and Salon coverage. Also CNET search results.  Seems to be notable, but the article could use some improvement and referencing. Joshua Scott (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge Although jailbreaking software is notable redsn0w may not need it's own article. It's difficult to say if this could pass notability with some more references and effort. The usage notes at Dev Team were updated a few days ago but I think this software is obsolete. Merging with iPhone Dev Team may be best option. - Stillwaterising (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Over 200 news archive hits for a name that can't possibly have false positives. Examples: Techtree  Ars Technica  Walla!  IDG  TUAW etc. The news stories are rather short, but there are also tutorials:  de:Macwelt etc. Pcap  ping  11:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep sources found, notable software.  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 04:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: The vast majority of references to redsn0w come from blogs. The secondary sources linked above all date from early to mid 2009 and tend to lean towards either "flash in the pan" or press releases covering a single version of the software. I don't think this meets notability for for multiple, sustained mentions in secondary sources. I think including this as more than a section of iPhone Dev (the developer) would constitute focusing on an obsolete product with only very minimal coverage. avs5221 (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There are plenty of reliable sources, and the fact that there isn't sustained coverage is irrelevant. Notability is not temporary. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2010 (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.