Talk:IgHome

Proposed deletion

• @JamesBWatson: I would like to contest your claim that the igHome article does not meet the notability criteria. The sources below indicate notability:
  • "igHome: The Ultimate iGoogle Replacement". About Tech. About.com. Retrieved 21 January 2016.
  • "igHome Offers Cozy Abode for iGoogle Orphans". TechNewsWorld. Retrieved 21 January 2016.
  • Rick Broida. "igHome gives displaced iGoogle users a familiar home". PCWorld. Retrieved 21 January 2016.
  • Melanie Penola. "igHome Totally Looks And Works Like iGoogle". LifeHacker Australia. Retrieved 21 January 2016.
  • Lonnie Brown. "Database: There's Hope After iGoogle Shuts Down". TheLedger. Retrieved 21 January 2016.
• Furthermore, igHome has as estimated worth of more than $3M and almost 3M page views per day. That makes the site notable, I'd say. Michieldewit (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• @JamesBWatson: As an aside: this article has been in existence for quite some while. When discussion about the relevance of an other article I wrote (start.me) rose, this page (and the one about Symbaloo) suddenly got marked for deletion as well? This smells like a witch-hunt... Michieldewit (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Michieldewit:

1. I don't recommend accusing other editors of things like "witch-hunts"; whether there is any merit in the suggestion or not, if you go round saying things like that, it is likely to make you look uncooperative and aggressive, which will not encourage other editors to be favourably disposed to you.
2. Quite simply, in the course of discussions relating to a deleted article, you mentioned a couple of other articles which you thought were similar. I had a look at them, and agreed with your assessment that they were similar, and did not seem to have much indication of notability, so I proposed them for deletion. There was no "witch-hunt".
3. It is a common mistake among editors with limited experience of Wikipedia to assume that if an article has existed for a substantial time then it must be perfectly all right, but that is not so. Among the five million and more articles in the English language version of Wikipedia, there are many that do not satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion standards, but which have not been deleted simply because none of the few thousand significantly active editors who check for things like notability have noticed them. At any time such an article may be noticed and proposed for deletion, and very often that happens because such an article is mentioned in discussions relating to deletion of another one.
4. Wikipedia's notability guidelines are not based on such criteria as the monetary value of a business, or the number of page views a web site gets. Perhaps such criteria should be taken into account, and if you think so then you are perfectly free to propose changes to the guidelines, but as long as the present standards are in force, such matters of of little relevance to whether an article is acceptable.
5. I didn't get your ping, but luckily I checked this page anyway. I can't say for certain why I didn't get the ping, but I have a suggestion as to why it may have been. The signature on your message gives the time as 12:04, but the edit is listed in the page editing history as being at 12:05, which makes me wonder if you hand-wrote the signature and date, rather than letting the wikimedia software do it automatically. The "ping" mechanism works only if the post in which "ping" is used also contains ~~~~, which is automatically translated into a signature and time stamp. "Ping" simply does not work in any other circumstance, such as a post with no signature, a signature added later in a separate edit, or a hand-crafted signature. If that was not the reason the ping didn't work, then I have no idea why it was, but if that was the reason you should now be able to avoid the same problem arising again.

The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• @JamesBWatson: Sorry about the witch-hunt thing. Emotions were running a little high. I react quite strongly to people who contest my integrity. Regardless, I think I would have preferred an inquiry about the two pages on my talk page first. The deletion proposal is quite a strong measure and does not really work well on the nerves. Thank you for removing them again. Suggestions about improving the articles are still welcome. 213.127.128.131 (talk) 10:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Michieldewit: I certainly had no intention of questioning your integrity: I have no reason whatever to doubt that you have acted purely in good faith, and all I questioned was whether the subjects satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I will try to get back to you on this as soon as I have time to look at the sources properly. (By the way, the "ping" worked OK this time.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)