User talk:Virdi/CyanogenMod

Why has this entry been deleted? This is relevant information. What is behind this move? 12.6.128.8 (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CyanogenMod (2nd nomination), someone remove the link to the debate from the article, thinking that the problem would go away, but it was still shifted aside rather than totally deleted. As you notice, caches can also keep a copy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dissapointment with wikipedia[edit]

This is the second time an article with relevant information for me has been deleted in my 8 years of using this site. Right now you can use Google cache which is a better source of information then this site can provide. I thought Wikipedia was suppose to allow people to find more about the things they were interested in, a place where no topic was to small or irrelevant as long as it was well written and accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTAVOTE for more information on the attribution protocols for deleted articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&user=Juliancolton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Juliancolton

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FCyanogenMod&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=Swiftfox:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Told you the AfD discussion was pointless. 217.95.63.87 (talk) 08:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was the lack of independent sources. Now that the article is in this user space, you can still edit it, and see if you can find mentions in other web sites, magazines, newspapers etc. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, almost immediately after the deletion decision came down, the "Google proprietary apps" controversy engulfing Cyanogen resulted in some new major press in various outfits. Those included PC World, The Register, The Inquirer, Ars Technica, The H and ZDNet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.113.5 (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the Register mention alone count as notable? See, I added a bunch of references about the C&D literally hours before the deletion, with proper footnotes and everything. Disappointment. --Eris Siva (talk) 04:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up and expansion[edit]

The article is being expanded here in the userspace. Once the article is ready, it can be moved to Wikipedia proper. virdi (talk) 06:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think it's just about ready to go. Make sure you get a reference to its press-inducing events in the lead, as that will make it easier for AFD the second time around. causa sui × 05:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion?[edit]

This article has been restored to its own page, there is no point in having this page anymore. Note that is has some info that the main article lacks, so it should be "merged" and deleted in my opinion. --javier032 (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]