Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odiogo

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 merge to History of podcasting#Timeline. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 02:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Odiogo[edit]

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

NN product, website defunct, seems to have been taken over by Wordpress exclusively, so the scope of the product as noted in the article isn't verifiable. Was deprodded on the basis of one CNET article in 2007, which is still the only source on it. MSJapan (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to History of podcasting § Timeline, which will improve that article a bit. I found some sources, but there does not appear to be enough available to qualify a standalone article. Sources found thus far are listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

CNET
Google This!. Elsevier. pp. 108–109.
Mashable (around 3 ¶ of valid content)

Keep - Notability established by existing and new sources now cited in the article. Northamerica1000's suggestion is also good and can be done boldly at any editor's discretion after this AfD has closed. ~Kvng (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you're going to vote, then make a choice; keep and merge are not the same thing. MSJapan (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My preference is to keep. A merge may or may not happen later but needn't involve AfD. ~Kvng (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into ~~History of podcasting § Timeline~~ the above link, Like Northamerica1000 I don't believe there's enough to warrant an article however merging this in to ~~History of podcasting § Timeline~~ the above link would help better sourcing it. –Davey2010^Talk 13:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I agree with Northamerica1000's reasoning - the one source doesn't demonstrate that this topic needs a standalone article. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 19:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing actually to suggest its significant connections to the history article itself. Any information can simply be mentioned there as needed, but there's nothing at all to suggest any actual independent notability thus there's no explanation why we should keep this. SwisterTwister talk 22:42, 12 July 2016 (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.