Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IceRocket (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IceRocket

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There was a very limited AfD discussion about this subject two years ago, where the result was keep, but after two years, nobody has bothered to provide reliable sourcing. I see news mentions, but not news articles, about this site. Woogee (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A brief Google News searched turned up this (relatively) recent review. Plus, reputable media outlets like PCWorld cite IceRocket as a source for data, which speaks to its notability. That, combined with the sources cited in the last AfD discussion, should be more than enough to satisfy WP:WEB. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 00:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a sad and unloved article to be sure, but the subject appears to pass WP:WEB. It seems like it failed to really take off, but still got massive media attention, especially when it first came out. I'm seeing plenty of Google Books hits too. Notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pn: andyzweb (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Recent coverage admittedly somewhat marginal and tending toward the trivial, but 04/05 coverage would appear to satisfy WP:WEB. A sampling: [1][2][3]. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 02:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After skimming the sources provided above, I think this subject meets WP:WEB. "Nobody's working on it" is generally an argument to avoid, but I'm willing to work on the article myself; hopefully that assuages the nominator's doubts. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see that despite the many keep !votes here, this article remains completely unsourced. Not even a primary source to speak of. JBsupreme (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:55, 1 February 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.