Deletion of Greenpois0n

Comment: though I may pay closer to attention to whats inserted for a  editor because there's a often a natural tendency to be partial,but no, I apply same standards to how I scrutinize sources
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: When I searched Google news, http://www.product-reviews.net/2012/11/24/ios-6-jailbreak-exemption-for-ipad-iphone-5/ this source came up, and the rest were hidden and though I didn't audit each source, the snippet view looked strikingly similar and perhaps Google's consolidation indicates derivative contents? I've read some of your sources and I noticed that some are things like "via twitter... developer announced that". Reviewing #Primary_criteria|Notability Criteria those references appear to fall under routine coverage of "simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGDEPTH)

Comment: Here's what I said on the talk page, since it seems relevant for this deletion discussion: These articles aren't ideal, but they include details about the software and its development.  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. And  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:N)

Comment: That article and the others include multiple paragraphs with detail, not just trivial/routine coverage. Are you applying a more stringent standard to these references because I'm a COI editor?  says "Requested edits are subject to the same editorial standards as any other," and :Template:Request edit/COIinstructions says "Avoid excessively high or low expectations. The quality of content from a request edit only needs to be comparable to our expectations from an average volunteer and be an improvement to the article." I know this isn't the same situation as evaluating a requested edit, but I think those recommendations are useful to consider
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)