Talk:Greenpois0n

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 December 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[IOS jailbreaking#Types of jailbreaking tools|"untethered"]] The anchor (Types of jailbreaking tools) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Note about draft[edit]

This draft covers both the tools described in the existing article and the newer tools described at Absinthe (software). Other editors had added material on Absinthe to this article a few months ago, but I removed their additions due to not being on the same subject as the existing article - see this diff and this diff. I've now changed my mind on this, since looking more closely, both the developers and independent sources sometimes describe the newer tools as Greenpois0n Absinthe and sometimes just Absinthe. These tools are all distributed on the same website by the same people; overall, it seems more useful to describe them in the same article instead of in two articles. I welcome comments and suggestions on this draft. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I believe the draft is in a good state now. Additional sources that I didn't find a way to work in: Ars Technica post on fake Greenpois0n tools, Ars Technica post on the SHAtter exploit, ReadWriteWeb on Absinthe for iOS 5.0.1, and some Engadget posts on Greenpois0n for 4.1 and 4.2.1. A bunch of these references discuss contextual information (security issues with jailbreaking, reasons why people might want to jailbreak their devices, recommended software to install after jailbreaking, etc.), but I'm not sure how much of that is appropriate to include in this article, since it's information general to jailbreaking instead of specific to these tools. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, which of these sources do you find to be reputable major sources with significant coverage on the product "greenpois0n" Cantaloupe2 (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some non-trivial coverage for the sub-topic of Greenpois0n: Ars Technica on background information, NetworkWorld on background information and more background information, PCMag on background information, Wired discussing the release. And for the sub-topic of Greenpois0n Absinthe: International Business Times on background information, CNet discussing the release, VentureBeat discussing the release, PCWorld discussing the release. These articles aren't ideal, but they include details about the software and its development, not just trivial mentions or simple announcements.

WP:N also says "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." It has multiple independent sources: Ars Technica, CNet, Engadget, Forbes, International Business Times, The Inquirer, PCMag, PCWorld/NetworkWorld, ReadWriteWeb, TheNextWeb, The Register, TUAW, VentureBeat, The Verge, and Wired. And WP:N says "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." I did not have to do original research to write this article; it's based on independent sources that address the subject. Dreamyshade (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VentureBeat: has nothing to do with greenpois0n directly. Does not even mention it.

Some other sources are routine product announcements.

Chronic Dev announced via twitter... this is a joke??? This subject, if anything, is a mention in somewhere else. I don't find notability worthy of its own wikipedia page.

ARSTechnica, a discussion about fake tool, that just happens to be released with a name greenpois0n.

PCWorld & Network World: again, routine announcement articles.

These are just collections of trivial coverage and routine product announcements. - Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the VentureBeat article is about Absinthe, which is called Greenpois0n Absinthe in other articles. The fake tools discussed in the Ars Technica article were efforts to trick people waiting for the release of the actual Greenpois0n tool - note that the article discusses the SHAtter exploit, which is also discussed in other articles about Greenpois0n. I believe the amount of detail in these articles is more than trivial/routine coverage. Dreamyshade (talk) 03:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

I'd like to ask for review of my proposed draft below, since I believe it's at least better than the current state of the article. I have a minor COI on this - I work for the company that makes Cydia, which Greenpois0n tools install, but the tools are mostly outdated, so I don't really benefit from a better article about them. I also chose to not mention Cydia in the draft to avoid impressions of bias. Note that this article is currently nominated for deletion. Thanks! Dreamyshade (talk) 03:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updated based on draft. @Cantaloupe2 or anyone else: feel free to revert if you feel this is worse than it used to be. (But it's much better source-wise) πr² (t • c) 23:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it looks like Wikipedia:Bombardment along with the addition of sub-product, which is an attempt to blast it with a large number of references in a hope to avoid deletion by making it seem more notable. Do you have any comments on the cited references? I think that they're mostly routine things, some are retweets like "via Wired" and such. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that including too many references was better for the article than including too few, so I erred on the side of including a bunch of references, but they directly address the subject and are not identical. I believe including Greenpois0n Absinthe makes sense; see my reasoning in my initial comment above. I'd welcome additional opinions though, especially since I'm COI. Dreamyshade (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It distorts the sense of notability by tacking on a bunch of (highcrediblenames).com when the mentions are actually quite trivial in many of the sources. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to comment with a list of instances where the references don't properly support the text (or similar issues), I'll see if I can suggest better references. I'm a little puzzled though about bringing up this bombardment concern after the draft was moved to the article, instead of commenting on it during the two weeks when it was an undisputed draft, since I had more freedom to improve the article when it was a talk page draft. :) Dreamyshade (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

greenpois0n.com domain no longer works[edit]

The link in the description box no longer works and needs to be removed or updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.192.152 (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]