Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IconBuilder


 * 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   no consensus. Jayjg (talk) 01:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

IconBuilder

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Apparently non-notable software. Can't find any reliable, independent third-party sources to establish notability. Notability and primarysources cleanup tags have been languishing on the article since June 2009. Psychonaut (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  —  Gongshow  Talk 23:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep First page of ghits had an independent review from cnet  and zdnet.  I agree such short listings re not ideal references for notability  , but they are not mere advertising, for these major sites are selective in the programs they include. A GBooks search  shows it's discussed as the standard software for the purpose in over a dozen well-known books.     DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Responding specfically to DGG, my understanding of CNet and ZDNet's selectivity is that they pretty much take anything that works, is supported, and isn't malware. In any case it falls short of the intention of "editorial control" and as sites hosting the software they can hardly be considered "independent" (for example, point me to a negative CNet review for software that they host).  They're also too short to be significant coverage.  However, this source, this one and this one are better.  This first party page is not independent but points to offline reviews in MacUser UK and IT Enquirer that would presumably also satisfy WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is no such thing as independent review from cnet for commercial soft, you have been trapped by somebody. Wikipedia will not become a commercial promotion place for any closed proprietary pieces of code. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkrellm (talk • contribs) 03:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm with you on CNet not being independent, Gkrellm, but how about the OTHER sources listed above? - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If your links are supposed to prove the notability of some bad-smelling binary blob for trivial operation in graphics, made by some low-brained programmer for low-brained customers that doesn't know about millions of free and opensource alternatives, then I think that such links have nothing to do with ideas that Wikipedia was based on. Gkrellm (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If your argument is predicated on the idea that Wikipedia exists to promote open-source software in preference to commercial software, or promote high-quality software over low-quality software, then you're fundamentally misguided as to the purpose and content of Wikipedia. Please read WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NOT (particularly WP:SOAP).  And then please enrich Wikipedia by writing articles about notable open-source alternatives to IconBuilder! If you'd like help getting started feel free to ask myself or any of the other editors on the project. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Take your zealotry elsewhere. Pcap ping  09:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The CNET review is just one paragraph on a download page. Those are napkin reviews: they might be independent but they're quick takes to fill the web page space. The ZDNET page doesn't even have an editorial review, only a manufacturer's description. There's in-depth coverage on creativemac.digitalmedianet.com, but that appears to be an obscure online publication which doesn't even have a page/list of its staff or editorial policy. The other blogs don't count as WP:RS&mdash; there's no telling who wrote them. There are bunch of mentions in google books, but most are trivial and ad-like. There is a one page tutorial in Mac Life print and online, an old review in MacUser, and a (rater spammy) review in a publication of Future plc. There's no review in Macworld that I can find, but there are a couple of rather old news blurbs  . Brief mention in theAppleBlog. Pcap  ping  09:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.