Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Workflow (app)

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 to delete. (non-admin closure) — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Workflow (app)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NSOFTWARE, as all the non-routine coverage seems to center about the single event of the parent company being acquired by Apple. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if rewritten: The mere fact that Apple thinks its valuable enough to acquire must mean that this app has signifigance (notability is not temporary), and may play a part in future versions of iOS. Right now, however, the article is just a statement and a list of sources. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete this article. I have added more references.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.136.38.134 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:109PAPERS. Quantity of sources is not nessecarily a means of measuring notability. It is the quality of the coverage. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest reference is in 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.136.38.134 (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did re-write the article just now; apparently this app won an award from Apple for its support of iOS accesibility features. Surely that is an example of pre-acquisition notability. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:31, 18 April 2017 (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.