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 Delete. Walton^One 14:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odigo[edit]

Odigo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non notable company. I replaced the speedy tag with a prod tag, and the prod tag was then removed because the article was referenced, even though it was only to primary sources, and it was 'doing no harm', which is irrelevent. J Milburn 23:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge Odigo Messenger into this article. The company has no real notability outside of the IM product and the IM product is often known just by this name. Don't see the need for two articles. --Dhartung | Talk 10:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As the prod tag clearly states, it can be removed at any time and may not be replaced. It is a company that exists and people use. It's not as if Wikipedia is going to crash and burn if this article remains. I don't see that the opinion of some sticky fingered Wikiphile with nothing better to do than go around deleting other people's articles is reason for it to be removed. And, btw, if you actually check up, 'doing no harm' is listed in the Wikipedia guide to deletion debates as a viable anti-deletion argument. Atraxus 20:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is the opposite, claiming the article doesn't do any harm is listed as an argument to avoid see WP:HARMLESS. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I resent your description of me. Secondly, it is made slightly more offensive by the fact you evidently have no idea what you are talking about, as Daniel so eloquently pointed out. To be quite brutally honest, an article on something that does not meet our notability guidelines does hurt the encyclopedia, as it destroys our credibility. Would you really take an encyclopedia which had vanity perma-stubs on hundreds of useless little corporations, which have since disbanded and never did anything worthy of note, seriously? And yes, the prod was removed, and, as I still believed that it may be best for the article to be deleted, I brought it here, so that there could be community input. Not only is that what is reccomended, but it means that it is not my decision, as you seemed to believe it is. In fact, had you even read what I had said, you would note that I removed the speedy deletion tag and replaced it with a prod tag. I came across it with a speedy deletion tag, and, being an administrator, I could have easily deleted the article and never looked back. But, I gave it a chance, and what do I get? Insults from those who believe it should be kept. Also, it is not someone else's article at all- yet again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Please excuse the length of this post, I was somewhat offended. Have a nice day. J Milburn 21:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wah, wah, wah... At least I was right about the culprit evidently having nothing better to do than stew over what's written on the Internet. Maybe you can prove me wrong by actually putting forward a reason for suggesting this for deletion other than you can and you apparently have nothing better to do? Atraxus 21:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just goading me. You suggest I have nothing to do but argue, then you come and flame me? I have given all the argument I need to- it does not meet our notability guidelines- I would be happy to be proven wrong. Instead of attacking me, why don't you actually find a decent argument? Things are not notable by default, it is up to those who wish for the article to be kept to prove that they are, and no one has proven that this is notable. J Milburn 21:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to find a reason. Keeps are winning now! ftw Atraxus 18:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote where the side with the most votes wins, votes are counted on their individual merit. Atraxus's vote with its personal attacks and obvious misreading of policy is not likely to make much of a difference. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then it just leaves me to congratulate you on your part in ridding the world of this unnecessary evil. Maybe I'll honour you by creating a Wikipedia article to commemorate the occasion. Atraxus 20:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I was ready to delete this article after the above discussion... but the reference to 911 makes this notable in my opinion.Balloonman 23:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Changing to delete upon closer examination thanks RGBalloonman 00:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:CORP going away, fails WP:V as well; while "Odigo" + "9/11" superficially has a number of Google hits, after going through the first hundred, not a single one is from a reliable source. Instead, they're all conspiracy/rumor/blog sites. It's noteworthy that the 9/11 conspiracy theories article lacks any mention of Odigo, even in the "possible early warnings" section.  RGTraynor  20:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I found a few non 911 related links [1], [2] etc but as the company doesn't exist anymore and we have articles on the parent company Comverse Technology and the notable product Odigo Messenger I don't see how the now defunct Odigo meets WP notability for corporations. Paxse 13:08, 10 July 2007 (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.