Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OmniDazzle


 * 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 of the debate was delete. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

OmniDazzle
Unremarkable software utility of the kind that exists by the thousand, google brings a grand total of one hit, and it's a product scheduled in the future on top of that Equendil Talk 12:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as the software is currently non-notable. GassyGuy 12:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete; ridiculous software that doesn't deserve its own article.Shutranm 16:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: Product announced by notable & award winning Mac software developer The Omni Group. Most of the software the Nom is likely refering to is for Windows, furthermore I do not see any programs of this type in wikipedia for mac. Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 23:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, this is not the AfD for Omni Group, but for OmniDazzle. I'm not refering to any platform in particular, and that you don't see any program of this type should have been a big hint that it doesn't belong to Wikipedia. Equendil Talk 23:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete along with those Fair Use images.--HereToHelp 23:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Are you sure a Google Search only brings one hit? When I try I get over fourteen thousand (14,100 to be exact). AlistairMcMillan 00:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply Actually, I get that too, no idea how I ended up with one hit earlier. Equendil Talk 01:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Too be exact, 56 non similar hits returned by google out of 14,100. Equendil Talk 01:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Although it's very early in its life, people are going to be looking up this product here. -- Steven Fisher 20:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep notable enough, if only just barely. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.