Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sn0wbreeze

Sn0wbreeze

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

Contested prod. Non-notable iPhone app. Only references provided are the app's own website and a blog. role^player 11:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update - more references have now been added, however they are mostly blogs, as far as I can tell. Still no concrete sources. -- role^player 11:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what should i produce to prove this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.250 (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some reliable third party sources. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Pretty much what RolePlayer said above. A google search yielded nothing concrete. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Changing to Redirect --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment assuming this is a jailbreaking tool, maybe it should just redirect to iOS jailbreaking? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have a feeling that this might be a moot point but I'm going to put it forward, but is there any point in redirecting when very few people are going to type sn0wbreeze into the search bar? I see more people using jailbreaking as a search term rather than sn0wbreeze. Again, tell me if this is irrelevant to the AfD discussion. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if its turned into a redirect and noone uses it then it can be challenged again, but if it might be useful it doesn't seem like a big deal to do that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point :) --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet notability guidelines; and do not redirect, as it won't be mentioned in the target article once it no longer has a non-redirect article. —Korath (Talk) 21:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]