- 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The result was keep (nomination withdrawn). ( non-admin closure) Anupmehra - Let's talk! 07:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Vamp Nail Polish ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
nail polish color is notable? this is written like an advertisement and poorly sourced. no primary sources available LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment if lack of notability is a concern, what one would need to establish an article's notability is in-depth coverage from multiple reliable third-party sources. Primary sources can be used at times, but unlike secondary sources they do not add to notability. XXSNUGGUMSXX ( talk) 05:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep
Weak deleteThere doesn't seem to be a lot of reliable-source, in-depth coverage (just articles along the lines of "10 nail varnishes you should own"). It might be better to add something to Chanel#Products or (to cover rival products) Nail polish#Nail polish in fashion: I don't suggest merging because of the tone/quality of this article. We do have articles on makeup brands e.g. see in Category:Personal care brands, but it's unusual to have one on a specific range or single product. But if it was re-written in a more encyclopedic style with better references, I'd say keep. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 14:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Article has been greatly improved since I made that comment. Article now demonstrates notability, and I have changed my vote. Well done to the contributors. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 11:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Meets the GNG. I've just now added two sources which are articles entirely about this exact nail polish. There are more which I'll be adding momentarily, but this is already enough for GNG, especially given that they're from five years apart, showing continuing in-depth coverage.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 01:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment None of the references have a link, how are they verified? LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
-
WP:SOURCEACCESS.
Are you sure you understand policy well enough to be nominating articles for deletion?— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 12:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
-
WP:SOURCEACCESS.
- You are incredibly condescending first of all. Second, I was always told that we cannot use references that require a subscription because how else would users be able to access it? I deleted one source, not all of them. That was what the question was for. So instead of trying to belittle me, you could have just said just take a look at SOURCEACCESS. Thanks. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- For the record, we can use references that require a subscription to view. If you can find an equivalent reference that doesn't require one, it's generally better because more people can view it, but there is no prohibition against using sources that you must pay to access. :-) Bali88 ( talk) 15:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Huh. I thought I was being kind by ignoring the fact that you didn't actually give a valid deletion rationale or, evidently, practice WP:BEFORE.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 14:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- As I stated above that how is nail polish color notable, which by Wiki stands is questioning WP:N. Before you edited it, it was and still is written like an advertisement and was poorly sourced. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Then you failed to look for sources, because they were easy to find. Even ones that aren't behind a paywall. I'm afraid you think notability is determined by the state of an article rather than being an intrinsic property of the subject. It is not: Wikipedia:Notability#Article_content_does_not_determine_notability. You're claiming it's written like an advertisement now? How so?— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 15:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- No, I do not think notability is determined through the state of the article, it's determined (among other things) on whether there is significant coverage on the subject which I didn't find any, good that you found it so easily. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 01:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep When this AFD was started the article was generally weak, particularly so on referencing, [1] but since then it has been well referenced and written in a more objective tone. Lack of primary sources is never a problem in itself (indeed it is argued that primary sources can sometimes be problematic [2] ) and NYT references are not precluded by being behind a paywall. [3] I would favour merging with a broader article such as Chanel cosmetics or Fashion nail polish but AFD should not mandate such an editorial decision and any merge would not involve deleting the present material. In striking his remarks, Alf.laylah.wa.laylah has apologised for his unkind remarks, [4] but at the same time he has greatly improved the article. Thincat ( talk) 08:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Withdrawn per Thincat and alf laylah wa laylah LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Do you mean you're withdrawing the nomination? Bali88 ( talk) 15:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 (nomination withdrawn). ( non-admin closure) Anupmehra - Let's talk! 07:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Vamp Nail Polish ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
nail polish color is notable? this is written like an advertisement and poorly sourced. no primary sources available LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment if lack of notability is a concern, what one would need to establish an article's notability is in-depth coverage from multiple reliable third-party sources. Primary sources can be used at times, but unlike secondary sources they do not add to notability. XXSNUGGUMSXX ( talk) 05:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep
Weak deleteThere doesn't seem to be a lot of reliable-source, in-depth coverage (just articles along the lines of "10 nail varnishes you should own"). It might be better to add something to Chanel#Products or (to cover rival products) Nail polish#Nail polish in fashion: I don't suggest merging because of the tone/quality of this article. We do have articles on makeup brands e.g. see in Category:Personal care brands, but it's unusual to have one on a specific range or single product. But if it was re-written in a more encyclopedic style with better references, I'd say keep. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 14:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Article has been greatly improved since I made that comment. Article now demonstrates notability, and I have changed my vote. Well done to the contributors. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 11:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Meets the GNG. I've just now added two sources which are articles entirely about this exact nail polish. There are more which I'll be adding momentarily, but this is already enough for GNG, especially given that they're from five years apart, showing continuing in-depth coverage.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 01:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment None of the references have a link, how are they verified? LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
-
WP:SOURCEACCESS.
Are you sure you understand policy well enough to be nominating articles for deletion?— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 12:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
-
WP:SOURCEACCESS.
- You are incredibly condescending first of all. Second, I was always told that we cannot use references that require a subscription because how else would users be able to access it? I deleted one source, not all of them. That was what the question was for. So instead of trying to belittle me, you could have just said just take a look at SOURCEACCESS. Thanks. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- For the record, we can use references that require a subscription to view. If you can find an equivalent reference that doesn't require one, it's generally better because more people can view it, but there is no prohibition against using sources that you must pay to access. :-) Bali88 ( talk) 15:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Huh. I thought I was being kind by ignoring the fact that you didn't actually give a valid deletion rationale or, evidently, practice WP:BEFORE.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 14:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- As I stated above that how is nail polish color notable, which by Wiki stands is questioning WP:N. Before you edited it, it was and still is written like an advertisement and was poorly sourced. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Then you failed to look for sources, because they were easy to find. Even ones that aren't behind a paywall. I'm afraid you think notability is determined by the state of an article rather than being an intrinsic property of the subject. It is not: Wikipedia:Notability#Article_content_does_not_determine_notability. You're claiming it's written like an advertisement now? How so?— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 15:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- No, I do not think notability is determined through the state of the article, it's determined (among other things) on whether there is significant coverage on the subject which I didn't find any, good that you found it so easily. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 01:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep When this AFD was started the article was generally weak, particularly so on referencing, [1] but since then it has been well referenced and written in a more objective tone. Lack of primary sources is never a problem in itself (indeed it is argued that primary sources can sometimes be problematic [2] ) and NYT references are not precluded by being behind a paywall. [3] I would favour merging with a broader article such as Chanel cosmetics or Fashion nail polish but AFD should not mandate such an editorial decision and any merge would not involve deleting the present material. In striking his remarks, Alf.laylah.wa.laylah has apologised for his unkind remarks, [4] but at the same time he has greatly improved the article. Thincat ( talk) 08:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Withdrawn per Thincat and alf laylah wa laylah LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Do you mean you're withdrawing the nomination? Bali88 ( talk) 15:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- 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.