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 delete. JForget 00:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sn0wbreeze[edit]

(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]
Delete per WP:N and WP:VERIFY Jjupiter100^{(talk!|contribs)} 16:27, 7 August 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.