Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wunderlist

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wunderlist

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

CSD was declined. Non notable organisation. Fiddle Faddle 09:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Startup only recently created. Fails WP:ORG. Not much else to say. scope_creep talk 15:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move to Wunderlist (software) CNet Review, Lifehacker article, Engadget article, macworld article, tabtimes review, theledger article... That's enough to establish notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC) An an afterthought, moving to Wunderlist (software) might clear up some of the confusion. The software is notable, the company probably isn't, and the article name doesn't distinguish the two.Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly move per Lesser Cartographies, those sources provide sufficient coverage to establish notability. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as several reliable independent sources have been found on the software. Zach Vega (talk to me) 17:30, 15 September 2013 (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.