Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icecream (software)

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. No sources proving notability have been provided. Carabinieri (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Icecream (software)[edit]

Cannot find any sources to assert its notability. A search on Google Books mentions it in passing; ther rest refer to stuff the product, ice cream. Google search gives me no sources either where Icecream is the primary subject of the article. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of assertion of notability. The name of the software obviously makes searching ghits quite unfruitful, and I get tens of thousands of hits even for the most restrictive search I could think of [1]. Of course, pleased to change to keep if someone finds an actual reliable source amongst those. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources covering this software. I tried a few searches including [2] but was unable to find any writeups about it in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Variant of distcc, could be mentioned here. Articles about software tools are hard to maintain on WP and there are better places (e.g. Freshmeat) to provide complete coverage for such tools. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The software is not related to distcc except it is a more powerfull tool solving the same issue. As a competing product it would not be welcome in 'distcc' article. The article is not out of date and thus the argument about maintainence is wrong. Note that the article has had multiple editors that all know the subject and added to it. Carewolf (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2008 (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.