Talk:Gigaom/Archives/2015

GigaOM Subsidiaries
Hi. I'm not really sure of the relationship of NewTeeVee and WebWorkerDaily to GigaOM. I can see that the sites are all interlinked and have Om Malik as Editor in Chief. In the article page, I called them "subsidiaries" of GigaOM but I'm really not sure if that's the correct term. Feel free to edit! Jonathan Stokes 06:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. NewTeeVee and WebWorkerDaily are two web sites that were purchased by GigaOM and eventually merged into the gigaom.com website as the Video channel (http://gigaom.com/channel/video/) and Collaboration channel (Collaboration has since been shut down, http://gigaom.com/2012/07/02/were-cleaning-up-the-place). Iankennedy (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LogoGigaOM.gif
Image:LogoGigaOM.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The Logo was updated in October, 2013 (http://gigaom.com/2013/10/23/why-we-are-refreshing-the-gigaom-logo-and-brand/) so I updated a new logo and attached the appropriate fair use template. Let me know if anything else is needed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gigaom_Logo.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iankennedy (talk • contribs) 23:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Iankennedy 11 November 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iankennedy (talk • contribs) 23:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: Notability tag
Clearly, tagging GigaOM for WP:N is a bit ludicrous. I think these facts clearly merit its notability:
 * ' [GigaOm] is among the top 50 blogs worldwide by Technorati Rank, and is part of CNet's 100 Most Influential Blogs '

Otterathome, can you explain why you think GigaOM is not notable? Billbowery (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See the template I added, it fails Wikipedia's guidelines.--Otterathome (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Billbowery - read my comment on the Tubefilter AFD, unfortunately editor otterathome has a vendetta against webseries related articles going on that is sad and pathetic. --Milowent (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Otterathome, the template is a statement that you don't think this article meets the guidelines, it is not an explanation of why. So, here's the question -- Can you explain why you think this article fails Wikipedia's guidelines?  Please note that a mere reference back to the template you added is not a proper answer.  Thanks! -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Uhm, you want me to copy and paste the template here? I didn't think an explanation was needed by looking at the sources. Source 1. primary source, source 2 is a stats page, and source 3 shows the website on a list of a 100 other websites. Here is the template for convenience though:

}}--Otterathome (talk) 11:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Otterathome, I didn't want you to cut and paste the template here. Don't be deliberately obtuse.  The template is a statement, it is not an explanation of why you think a template applies.  Fortunately, you managed to (accidentally?) provide an explanation : "Source 1. primary source, source 2 is a stats page, and source 3 shows the website on a list of a 100 other websites."  That's an explanation, as opposed to the template, which is a statement.  Statement != Explanation.  An explanation is almost ALWAYS needed when applying a template, especially when an explznation is asked for.  Makes your arguments go a whole lot smoother.  -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * An explanation would be appropriate, but I didn't think so by looking at the serious lack of sources. Any editor with a basic understand of notability policies would know exactly why it was placed.--Otterathome (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done some tagging to the article to assist editors in improving the article.--Otterathome (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Notability Tags
As the article does not cite any independant coverage which isn't trivial so it doesn't pass our general notability guideline so I added that template.

As the article does not cite any independant coverage which isn't trivial it(1), nor does it say it has won any awards(2) and as it is self-published by the authors(3) it doesn't pass our web notability guidelines. So I have added the relevant template.


 * 1) From the website itself, not independant.
 * 2) A search result
 * 3) Top 100 blog list, trivial
 * 4) Article is about the author, his website gets a 1 sentence mention. Trivial.
 * 5) Article about a conference the website owner attended, nothing much to do with the website.

Editors are encouraged to find non-trivial independant coverage for this article which would invalidate both templates so they could be removed.--Otterathome (talk) 09:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Editors are encouraged not to say "a conference the website owner attended" when referring to a conference organized by the blog. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it's about the website owner, not the web itself then. So it's trivial coverage.--Otterathome (talk) 12:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's actually about the company — GigaOm, which has a number of divisions including publications, research, and events. Billbowery (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have inserted the notability tag with this commentary to the tag itself: notability|Please do not remove this tag until satisfactory coverage of this subject has been found. This article needs more sources that are:
 * 1) directly about the subject of GigaOM - not sources about Om Malik, not indexes, not appearance in lists, not appearance in statistic tables, not search engine entries
 * 2) significant in coverage - not just appearances in lists, not just statistical data, and hopefully of significant length, rather than just a sentence or a few paragraphs.
 * 3) independent of the subject.

The existing sources on this article are trivial, of insignificant length, and not directly about the subject of GigaOM. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)