Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Any.do

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. There's consensus that the article meets the General notability guideline. (non-admin closure) Nobody (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any.do

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

It does not fall under NORG guidelines. Any reliable sources? LusikSnusik (talk) 10:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Management, Software, Websites, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

~~Delete~~Keep: despite what @Gidonb: 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 & why I did it wrong) 17:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC) Changing my !vote to keep per last sources brought up by Skynxnex. I'm not sure the whole Max World, Mac Life, and Micro World bunch is reliable, but with that Forbes article it adds up to enough for WP:GNG for me. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 08:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Although I might have been a bit quick with the "promotional" and it's only about the two by Sarah Perez, I can't help but have doubts whens someone writes about a beautifully designed, deceptively simple, gorgeous new app with an attractive design that stand[s] out of the crowd and is working towards building out a smarter, more intelligent system. They do look a bit like PR pieces. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 08:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you reached the same conclusion after a more thorough review! gidonb (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some more reviews (many of these links are wikipedia library links, I'll try to provide enough context to show how relevant they are):

A Task Master to Beat All; Any.do is perfect for sailors who like to keep their boats organized by Donald A. McLenna in Sail, November 1, 2014. A five paragraph positive review from the perspective of a sailor. (I didn't find these articles easily but it mentions that "It won Apple’s 2012 'Intuitive Touch' Award, Android’s 'Best App' for 2012 and a nod in my 'Top 5 Apps for 2013' in the December 2013 issue of SAIL", as a sign of more continuing coverage.)
Any.do's Life-Planner Adds Another 4 Million Users, 3/11/2014, by a (former) Forbes staff member so probably reliable and contributing to notability?
Any.Do 3 Review: Don't like apple's reminders? You might like Any.Do, By: Loyola, Roman, Macworld - Digital Edition, Jun 2015. About six functional paragraphs ending with "The different list views make the free version of Any.do better at organizing your task list than Apple's Reminders. And the ability to create subtasks and add notes and attachments is handy. The premium version of Any.do has features that'll make you seriously consider using it instead of Reminders, but you have to be willing to pay for it on a regular basis."
Any.do by Joseph, Cliff. Mac Life, Oct 2019. Four-ish paragraph review starting with "The marketing blurb for Any.do is a bit intimidating, as it seems to be aimed at budding business tycoons and “results– driven teams”. But it turns out that the basic, free version is simply a rather nice app for making to–do lists.".
App Battle Any.do Vs Todoist, by: Leane's, Rob, Micro Mart, 2/25/2016.

there's more reviews/coverage about the same level as well, so I think definitely meets WP:GNG and our general guidelines for software. Skynxnex (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Skynxnex provided plenty of sources. Whizkin (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2024 (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.