- 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. Cirt (talk) 04:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- UniquePhones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
not notable, likely a site set up by the company to cover their shady reputation -- see article history Modefier (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete POV article about non-notable company which appears to fail the significant coverage criteria for verifiability. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. See abundant coverage in reliable sources at this Google News archive search. --Eastmain (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per Eastmain. Enough sources there with specific coverage of the company. Nsk92 (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but needs clean up. We66er (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Company does not seem to be notable and seems to be affected by POV. LordKenTheGreat (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJTalk 02:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - seems to meet the notability criteria with mutliple RS (per Eastman) mentioning their IPhone on/off stuff. However - if this was a person, we'd be saying BLP1E applied, as all the coverage relates solely to unlocking iPhones and their claim to be able to do so; there's apparently no coverage of other aspects of the company. So, are they really notable, or should we consider it's 'notability by reflection' from the iPhone. Like I said, the company notability rules don't consider that, so they meet the letter of the rules. But not the spirit. MadScot (talk) 04:48, 20 September 2008 (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.