- 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 no consensus. Merging is certainly an option to be discussed. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Handy Light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested speedy and contested PROD; non-notable iPhone app with limited to no coverage. Stifle (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Received coverage, is an example of Apple's strict control over the iOS platform. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable iPhone app with coverage in major international news media. And why are we being told that the PROD and speedy were contested? "What I tell you three times is true". Colonel Warden (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - Indicating the prior procedural history of a nomination is entirely proper, and is expected of any experienced editor. I realize you're trying to make some wiki-political statement with that Colonel, but it's not in the least compelling. Shadowjams (talk) 05:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - No opinion either way for now. I would note that the reason the article's received coverage was because of the circumstances of its use and its creation. That suggests in some ways that it has more to do with the iPhone app store than it does with any particular app. That said, I am willing to wait for some analysis before making up my mind. From what I've searched for it isn't especially strong either way but I recognize some argument for its inclusion. Shadowjams (talk) 05:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, though I do tend to agree with Shadowjams; while the application did do something clever, it could have flown largely under the radar (as far as major media is concerned) unless Apple had nixed it from the App Store; if that had been the case, it likely would not meet GNG. Another possibility may be merging the content into this segment of the App Store article.Aeternitas827 (talk) 05:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The subject of this article is not, in and of itself, notable. That it serves as an example of Apple's controversially tight control over iOS applications is notable. Notability relates specifically and exclusively to the subject of an article. The subject, in this case, is not what is notable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, prefer Merge somewhere. This app has received a considerable amount of coverage, but most of it is not really about the app itself, rather about the issues it raises about user modification of the iphone and Apple's app banning policies. Don't we have a List of iPhone apps article this can be merged to? Robofish (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Ah, I see we did, but it was turned into a redirect. But the suggestion above of merging into App Store#Content restrictions is a good one; that gets my !vote. Robofish (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.