Talk:Gnolia

Page Deletion

This page was deleted twice already because of insignificance, but I believe that a page on Ma.gnolia is significant. I will try to list some examples:

The website has launched in 2006 and is often presented as contender to delicious: [1], [2], [3]
It is one of the advocates of open identity standards such as APML, MicroID, OpenID, and OAuth
The developers are in the progress of starting a new project called M2 and will try to provide enought material for others to host custom installations of the service.
A search for ma.gnolia returns 7 independent that refer to the page. On List of social software it is the only red link.

Kak (talk) 23:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, you're wrong. The article was deleted because the subject was not notable; we don't dismiss anything as "insignicant"! For "proof" of notability, you've given us 3 blog posts (sorry, not reliable sources for anything; a statement that it advocates something you consider notable (so what?); an assertion that it's developers are working on something important (sorry; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and "it's gonna be big" is not a valid assertion of notability); and your last assertion is so garbled that I don't understand it and therefore can't comment on what it says. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion log indicates that the article was deleted because of insignificance, it does not refer to notability. My argumentation was based on the reason indicated for deletion. The blog posts should provide some significance in relation to comparable websites and, agreeing with you, cannot be used as reliable sources for notability. I am not aware of any rules for speedy deletion in case the subject is not notable, but you are the expert here.

I have seen that my "garbled" last assertion was missing a word. Sorry, I did not want to confuse you. Searching for ma.gnolia returns 7 independent pages on Wikipedia that refer to this (not existing) article. This is another argument for significance, I know.

In order to address the notability concerns, I would like to add the following references:

I believe this is sufficient, and I hope I could deliver my point. If no further information is needed, please restore the article. Kak (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ma.gnolia is Back

Ma.gnolia is back as Gnolia (dropping the subdomain ma). The name changed was due to a letter from Magnolia-CMS. 120.28.177.224 (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to Be bold and fix this in the article. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Gnolia. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.wired.com/business/2009/01/magnolia-suffer/
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.wired.com/business/2009/01/magnolia-suffer/
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.wired.com/business/2009/01/magnolia-suffer/
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.wired.com/business/2009/01/magnolia-suffer/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Broken links

Because the site doesn't exist any longer, all url's on the page now direct to a site that has nothing to do with the original article. I already deleted the external links section, hoping I didn't do any harm with this edit. I'm also not sure what to do with the Website Infobox. Can this been fixed? Christophelambrechts (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]