Talk:HelloGiggles

Internet Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Websites: Computing

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Feminism

	Feminism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

conflict of interest

with "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" this is not the owner for the website making this article, i am not affiliated with hellogiggles, also what makes it seem like an advert?— Preceding unsigned comment added by WeThreeHG (talk • contribs) — WeThreeHG (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Everything from the username to the use of second-person ("doing your taxes") to the girl-talk tone of the article, which is grossly inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. (I removed the worst offender of all, the giggly "no dirty Boys allowed" sentence.) --Orange Mike | Talk 16:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

are the changes made now any better?--WeThreeHG (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

as of this version, yes it is "better", but that is just relative to where it started from. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, can be left as is without being deleted? --WeThreeHG (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed up the referencing. It is currently a very undeveloped stub so deletion is still a possibility - the article needs to grow some more substantive (properly sourced) content. Your username implies that you are a group of people using a single account and it also implies a connection with the subject - I'd advise you to rather get separate individual usernames with no obvious connection to the subject. Roger (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the Forbes and Mashable coverage appear to me to meet the minimum threshold established in WP:N of "significant coverage in multiple third party sources", but others may have different interpretations. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, made a different username, and we will be working on the content a little more --RoTuT (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i had help getting the format correct, but that person is no longer here, i should not have used "we" in that last post --RoTuT (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Potential source

This editorial about Deschanel and her TV show has the interesting comment "Men aren’t attracted to her because she physically resembles a child, but because she emotionally represents the non-threatening nature of a young girl. Men will never have to worry about her mental superiority when her website has a name like “Hello Giggles.”" - I am not sure if it is appropriate for this article or how to incorporate it if it is. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably a better fit on Zooey Deschanel because the comment is about her rather than about the website as such. Roger (talk) 10:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is total garbage, pseudopsychology and plainly sexist. Don't include it on any article. 2601:645:8001:F586:F9A3:D10:964E:4077 (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bought for 3 figures?

This uncited claim is ridiculous. if 100,000 is 6 figures, then 3 figures is ... between 1 hundred and 1 thousand dollars? Way too low to be the selling value of a website like this. 2601:645:8001:F586:F9A3:D10:964E:4077 (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]