Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Any.do

Any.do

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

It does not fall under NORG guidelines. Any reliable sources? LusikSnusik (talk) 10:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Management, Software, Websites,  and Israel.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  10:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep by the GNG and also procedural keep, as no valid reason for deletion was brought forward. The intro says It does not fall under NORG guidelines. Any reliable sources?, however this is an article about a TECHNOLOGY not about a company. So NORG does not apply. "Any reliable sources?" is a slap in the face of the BEFORE requirements. That's to the procedural keep. To the keep, this is an easy keep because of the large number of reviews of the technology in prime publications. Such reviews are almost by definition in depth and original as the journalist RESEARCHES the tool. gidonb (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete: despite what says, this was "co-founded" and is explicitly designated in the article as "the company", so you can hardly say WP:NORG doesn't apply here. As to the "procedural keep", Any reliable sources? can also be a way of formulating the often-made query of "I haven't found any reliable sources. If anyone finds some, please ping me". Refs 1, 2 and 8 (techcrunch) are promotional ("beautifully designed", etc.) or very short, 3 (linkedin) is not independent, 4 (the next web)'s reliability is disputed, 5 (interview of co-founder) is not independent, 7 is a name-drop. This leaves 6 (the verge) as the only independent, reliable, and significant source, but notability guidelines do say sources, plural, so a single source isn't enough for notability. Also to Gidonb: you say you've found large number of reviews. I would appreciate if you could give some links to these, per WP:SOURCESEXIST. — Alien333 (what I did &amp; why I did it wrong) 17:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A source is promotional because it is a positive review? I think the TechCrunch sources, at least the review by Perez, should count, as it's done by their reporting side and doesn't seem to be based on any press release. Aaron Liu  (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)