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: Kak (talk) 23:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The website has launched in 2006 and is often presented as contender to delicious:, ,
 * 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.
 * 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  &#x007C;   Talk  21:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * Launch: http://www.techcrunch.com/2005/10/22/magnolia-more-social-bookmarking/
 * OpenID: http://blog.vidoop.com/archives/82
 * OAuth
 * http://oauth.net/about, http://oauth.net/license/core/1.0
 * http://www.hueniverse.com/hueniverse/2008/08/oauth-licensed.html
 * M2
 * http://mashable.com/2008/08/22/magnolia-open-source/
 * http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10023422-2.html
 * 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)

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)


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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Gnolia. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add 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 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 ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

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)