Talk:Gurgle

Untitled
Removed this line as seems more relevant to Mothercare than Gurgle: In 1996 Mothercare rebranded all its superstores 'Mothercare World' stores and agreed to buy the Early Learning Centre (ELC) in April 2007 for £85 million --IcedRockets (talk) 11:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed the audience section as unable to find any independent reference to these figures. Feel free to add back in if these figures do exist: Gurgle's audience profile is 98% female, 55% aged between 21-30 and 30% aged between 31-40 —Preceding unsigned comment added by IcedRockets (talk • contribs) 13:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Also removed Gurgle world section. not enough info to justify it --IcedRockets (talk) 11:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed references to self-published material and inappropriate external links from warning message as these issues have now been resolved. --IcedRockets (talk) 11:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Any ideas on establishing notoriety? This is quite subjective. How do you prove notoriety? --IcedRockets (talk) 11:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Planning on writing a page for Fleming Media company to help establish notability for this article. Any help greatly appreciated. --IcedRockets (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Would suggest this is the bit that needs either deleting or rewriting to prevent it sounding like an advert. It has no references and sounds like could have been written with promotional purposes in mind: 'Gurgle has over 1,600 expert articles, 52 tutorial videos, ovulation and due date calculators and a Gurgle babynamer. The chat and answers forum lets members chat and add comments. Gurgle also has competitions, polls, surveys and quizzes. Gurgle members have a personalised page on registration and receive a weekly newsletter personal to their parenting stage. The Gurgle panel has seven high profile experts including midwives, health visitors, GPs and fertility and childcare experts to advise on more difficult topics. Gurgle is not only for parents, but also midwives, doctors and health professionals.' --IcedRockets (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Having taken out quite a bit of content from this page to fix the raised issues, it now appears a little thin so have added UK media stub requesting further contributions. --IcedRockets (talk) 11:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Have added reference to current management. Would suggest that a new page on this person might help the notability issue with this page. --IcedRockets (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the criteria for establishing notability it seems to me this page now adheres to this section:

'''The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[4] except for the following:

* Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[5] * Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores.'''

This would justify removal of notability warning? --IcedRockets (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)