Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You Need a Budget


 * 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. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 05:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You Need a Budget

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Long tagged for improvement, it remains advertisement-ish in tone. Appears not a particularly notable desktop product or app. --EEMIV (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 11:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 11:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - I cleaned up the article a bit by removing promotional content in the article. It appears to be a some what popular app based on the number of reveiws from tech sites. I'm inclined to keep for now although my position is not firm. Holyfield1998 (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Along with the few references listed in the article, I found a paragraph for it in this PCWorld list, this Entrepreneur list, and this lfpress.com article; sentences in this US News and World Report list, this NWI.com list, and this TheStreet article; mentions in this CS Monitor article and this Forbes article; and a bit in this Lifehacker post. Not the strongest references, but probably enough independent coverage for a short article. Dreamyshade (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Delete. Ho-hum article about a non-Notable product. References noted just above are not especially persuasive. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 21:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:00, 22 January 2013 (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.