This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2009 September 25. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
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 | Talk 14:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
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) reply
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. reply
This is not significant coverage, and does not demonstrate WP:Notability for CyanogenMod. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC) replyI recently spoke with Steve Kondik (aka Cyanogen) who has released his own customized builds of Android. He told me that Donut builds were [...]