Talk:Remember the Milk

Don't Delete

Okay upon reading the supposed justification for speedy delete I would ask that the nominating party explain to me how the article fails to live up to this section of the guidelines: "Note that simply having a company, product, group, service, or person as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion; an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well." Where is this inappropriate content? I believe that the parts of the article that are most questionable are those that are least changed from the Google Calendar page upon which I based this article... if it's good enough for that page, why not for this one? DiggyG 03:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google Calendar is an application by a notable development company. It received many reviews, press mentions, etc. As an Australian software developer, I wasnt exactly ecstatic about nominating a product by a local company for db, but the article makes no assertions for notability of the product, and it is not being developed by a notable development house. I appreciate the efforts the author(s) have gone to, but the subject is not noteworthy enough for an encylopedia article - at least in its present stage of development. When it is complete and has received rave reviews and actually has a user base, Id welcome reconsiderations on the topic. Metao 03:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other beta stage programs have pages, and Slate is a respected press source.

I think there's a need for this page, after reading about it in Slate, I searched wikipedia for more information, and finding none wrote the article myself. On the other hand, 1 person is a pretty small sample size...

In any case the nomination was based on claims of blatant advertising, not non-notableness. If you want to nominate for deletion because of non-notableness I would have to contest that RTM is ["obviously non-notable"] as it was notable enough for me to go looking for it in the first place. DiggyG 03:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I selected ad because the notability template is about bands and such. In any case, I did what I should have done all along, and actually googled the software. I got a fair few hits, including linuxworld.com.au, zdnet Australia and lifehacker on the front page, so Im happy to withdraw the template. I freely admit I am a bit db-happy ;) Cheers, Metao 04:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'll try to fix it up so it reads better. :) DiggyG 04:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I'm glad this article survived speedy this time. It's one of the most well known amongst the "to do list" category of web applications. It's also note-worthy for being one of the few sites that actually uses Google Gears. Also, the fact that this article has been recreated several times (what a waste of human hours) indicates that there is some level of interest from the general public. I know, that doesn't necessarily mean the article is automatically compatible with Wikipedia criterias, but it's true nonetheless. —Tokek 14:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it uses Gears is, IMO, enough to justify it's inclusion alone. --Dyefade (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember the Milk is an application that has had some press exposure, and the its page, modeled on the Google Calendar page, contains no more blatant advertising than that page does.

Of course it requires substantial rewrites, it's a new page.

I have a recollection of RTM being an early showpiece of some sort of web 2.0 technology, perhaps AJAX? It was actually very influential when it was new. I'm hoping this will jog someones memory to something a bit more concrete. --KeithWright (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate domain

Should we include the rmilk.com shortcut domain? Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 07:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]