Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPodLinux

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The result was Withdrawn. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IPodLinux

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. I am unable to locate non-trivial coverage of substance from reliable third party publications for this Linux distro. JBsupreme (talk) 09:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per IPod Repair QuickSteps (book), Popular Science Jul 2006, The official CHFI study guide (book), and Take control of your iPod (book). Joe Chill (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news search has over 200 results. And the books mentioning it are impressive as well. Dream Focus 01:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Google results are among the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. ~ 10nitro (talk) 02:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Google NEWS, not just Google. And those essay pages are meaningless batter, put there by anyone who wants to give their opinion on anything. If its mentioned that many times in major news sources, its notable. Dream Focus 02:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: On desktops, *nix only has around a max of 15% market share, less if we exclude Mac OS X -- yet it still has a significant impact. Given the clear impact necessary to be mentioned on SlashDot, Newscientist.com, Popular Science magazine, as well as several technical books on the iPod. This significance is magnified by the fact that it is one of only 3 systems available for the iPod (the Apple firmware, iPodLinux, RockBox). iPodLinux was the first group to release documentation on much of the iPods' technical specifications. The project would be noteworthy, if just for this contribution (which, currently, is under-documented in the article). Whether or not the above managed to properly convince you, the only relevant thing that Wikipedia is Not is an indiscriminate collection of information (notability). Now, notability is a very relative term, and means different things to different people, but there are some things that clearly don't belong on Wikipedia (I think there's a wikiproject or something with that title). Given the argument, I don't think it is in the group "clearly doesn't belong on Wikipedia", if it is in the gray area, I think the article should be kept. If it is in the gray area, and there isn't significant other reason to delete it, I believe that it should be kept, much on the same principals of Good Faith.

As I said, the project would be noteworthy if just for it's contribution of technical documentation. It would also be greatly improved by more (non-primary)/(3rd party) sources. However, this is not reason to delete it, AFD is not cleanup.

You may object to my involvement in this discussion and the article, on grounds that I am somewhat involved in the iPodLinux wiki. I became a primary editor of the article before my involvement there. Also, I am primarily only an editor there. I don't generally create new content, but organize, copy-edit, cite, etc. What is there. I treat it much as an expanded version of this article, as I realized much of the data is unsuitable for here, as either technical, too detailed, etc. ~ 10nitro (talk) 02:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't care if you're involved with iPodLinux or not, I just care if there are reliable third party sources covering the project. It appears that there are, so I am withdrawing this deletion request. JBsupreme (talk) 03:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources found by Joe Chill, and coverage goes back as far as 2004: Hadley Stern, iPod & iTunes hacks, O'Reilly Media, ISBN 0596007787, pp. 199–207. These seem enough to satisfy WP:GNG. There are quite a few details in this article from less reliable sources, but that's not a reason to delete the whole thing. Pcap ping 16:20, 19 December 2009 (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.