Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simply Nailogical

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Unfortunately, none but the nominator believe this article is non-notable; one editor was undecided but stated that the soucing appeared "acceptable", even if the content was "decidedly promotional". That can be dealt with. ——Serial 14:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure) ——Serial 14:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simply Nailogical[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very unclear what is intended to be notable here. Various claims to YouTube subscriber numbers but, despite prompting several times, no sources have surfaced. Having a day job and another hobby/ occupation is hardly notable. Sources provided are very weak and look to be self promotional/ paid for content/ press releases etc . Nothing of any weight. Searches reveal more of the same but no RSs . For a BLP we need multiple independent and reliable sources. This meets none of those criteria. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. MacLean's article legitimizes subscriber count of almost 7 million and is an in-depth article from a reliable source with no connection to Rotenberg. Coverage in Ottawa Citizen for her podcast (doesn't appear to be self-promotion. though it isn't in-depth, it isn't trivial coverage either). Coverage in Tube Filter and AOL about her nail polish brand (the AOL source is from many months after the brand's launch, so its unlikely its a press-release sort of thing). This plus the not in-depth but definitely non-trivial coverage in VICE means the article almost certainly meets WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. Subscriber count indicates meeting criteria 2 of WP:ENT by having a fanbase of 7 million and originating the "100 coats" trend indicates meeting criteria 3 of WP:ENT and criteria 2 of WP:CREATIVE as well. Samsmachado (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the AOL source and the Tubefilter sources are both out-and-out advertisement. Whether paid for or from a press release isn't immediately clear but even down to prices for various items. Absolutely no independence there. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's common practice to list prices for items when writing an article about those items/a new company that produced them. To not do so when discussing a new brand would be an error in journalism as it would not describe the price point and intended audience of that brand. They are not out-and-out advertisements as neither article discloses that they are advertisements. Your assertion of these being non-independent sources is purely conjecture. Please provide evidence. Samsmachado (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided - sources seem acceptable but content looks decidedly promotional to me. Deb (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG. The article needs clean-up but there are enough RS to establish notability. Citrivescence (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Corachow (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.