Talk:Good Hair Day

message: *Hi there.
I just created this page.
And someone just put it up for deletion saying it was part spam part nonsense.
I really don't understand how it is possible to say this, since GHD is the biggest hair iron brand in the UK.
Not only this, but I even provided website backup on the page to prove what I was saying.
Write back?
xx 
Iamandrewrice (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you serious? It was actually deleted per A7 (lack of established notability). If this is a serious attempt at creating an article about the company then I strongly suggest that you work some more on it in user space first. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Clear example of spam, in my opinion. If this is not speedied, I'll nominate it for AfD, as I can't see how it is in any way encyclopedic. Duke of Whitstable (talk) 13:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam 

message: what do you think of the whole thing now?
(:
Iamandrewrice (talk) 14:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reference two is a dead link, three is a list of products and four is little more than an advert, from what I can see. Barring the Express and Star article, which mentions Good Hair Day without being about Good Hair Day, are there any further published independent sources? Duke of Whitstable (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: "...as well as a variety of other such cremes to counteract the burning effects of their straighteners" needs to be sourced from a third-party to show that the effects are counteracted. Otherwise it's just an advertising claim Duke of Whitstable (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The AfD will run and the Wikipedia community will get the chance to decide, I have no intention of withdrawing the nomination at this time Duke of Whitstable (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It appears that GHD is a brand owned by the Jemella Group. A Google News search for Jemella Group gave me 19 results (search the archives). I think we can find 2 good sources among those 19 results. At this point I would support a move to Jemella Group and add at least two reliable sources showing non-trivial coverage of Jemella Group. GHD can then be included in that article as a separate section. Then we wouldn't have to prove the notability of GHD beyond sourcing that it is the main brand of a notable company. Since notability is not inherited this does not warrant a seperate article like this one. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea, EconomicsGuy. At least that way some of this content can be salvaged and this whole experience won't have been merely a pointless exercise in frustration. Jeffpw (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: With all due respect, I think you need to read about what notability is. I can provide dozens of sources for the names of all 50 councillors on Canterbury City Council, but that doesn't make them notable. Duke of Whitstable (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: If you could provide reliable sources that the brand is "famous" and "bigger than all the other hair iron company's (sic)" here, then you may have made a case for inclusion. Remember that elephants can have feathers if you can find a reliable source that says so. Alternative, elephants are not grey unless you can find a reliable source that says so Duke of Whitstable (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Results 1 - 10 of about 105 for "GHD'd hair"...so a total of less than 105 for that phrase, in whatever context. In comparison "donkey condom" has 339, "aqua penis" has 120, "sexy dinosaur" has 1,600, "Wikipedia anus" has 291, etc, etc. Duke of Whitstable (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem with those search results is that the bulk of them are blogs and forum posts, and are, as such, not allowable as references. This article can better be merged; at least then some of your contributions will be salvagable. Jeffpw (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a quick comment that the terms I searched and the number of results were specifically for those pairs or words next to each other in the results. Duke of Whitstable (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, you assume because you consider something to be "famous" then that is enough. Queen Elizabeth II could not be labeled as "famous" on Wiki unless there were reliable sources to back-up such a claim. The reference is from their website. If I were to create a website about myself, would that mean I could create a Wiki article about myself based on what is on that website? Duke of Whitstable (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Iam, please don't take things personally and don't attack other editors. It isn't nice and it is against policy. Believe it or not, people here are trying to help you, and salvage as much as possible from this article. This is part of the Wikipedia process, and its aim is to build a better encyclopedia. Jeffpw (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Your best options at this point are to either A) improve the article so it will not be deleted, or B) start working on another article after you have read all relevant policies and guidelines. Complaining and making this a personal situation will not help the article or your reputation here. Jeffpw (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Let me help you out a bit as you seem to be misunderstanding what non-trivial coverage and reliable sources are. Look at this article. The source is reliable as we know that it was published by someone who most likely check their facts. Most major local and national newspapers do so as well as most major magazines etc. However, the coverage is only trivial as the article isn't about GHD. It merely mentions GHD. This is why the burglary source won't work nor the fact that GHD products were used during major fashion shows. What would work would be third party coverage such as reviews by reliable sources. Do you know of any such reviews? If so, and if they aren't merely a few lines of text, they would most likely be good sources if they are from reliable independent sources. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: No, none of them will do as none of them are reliable sources. They are all user-submitted reviews and therefore liable to be added by employees of the company. And I believes EconomicsGuy is requesting reviews of the company, rather than the products Duke of Whitstable (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately those are user contributed reviews so they won't work. I've asked for help Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Good_Hair_Day. Hopefully some of those involved there will be able to help you. If nothing else I know DGG to be an excellent and neutral admin. I'm asking for reviews of the brand and thus the company - basically any non-trivial coverage. As I'm unable to find any myself I'm leaving it to others to search for such coverage by reliable sources. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  i have done it i have done it... 

message: Ryan Hillen is not a founder of the company.
He's a guy in my ICT class.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.215.106 (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed —αlεx•mullεr 21:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ryan Hillen 

message: Is nowhere to be found in the reference.
"gay icon James McCallister introduced the idea to friends"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.233.207.40 (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  James McCallister 

message: I noticed that this article is riddled with spelling and grammatical errors, so much so that anyone would think it was written by someone from the marketing industry. Funnily enough, the style of the article also suggests this. The article needs quite a lot of work to bring it up to standard. (Huey45 (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs major work 

message: Run over this article and made a number of amends to remove the overt promotional references, particularly to relatively meaningless magazine awards and tenuous celebrity mentions. Sections on counterfeiting and model ranges also removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatmichaelsays (talk • contribs) 14:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewritten 

message: There was a lot of spam on this page and I agree with the clean up. I thought a link to ghd-repair.co.uk would be quite useful as it gives a lot of info about how to repair these irons so people can repair them themselves. I've just read the linking guidelines and see that as I run that website then I should not add it, so I'll leave it to another editor to add if they agree!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.44.20.206 (talk) 08:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  My thoughts 

message: According to Wikipedia's style manual, as well as that of almost every major news outlet, the name ghd should actually be styled as GHD. You can see several examples from other websites by simply searching for "ghd" in Google News, and you can see Wikipedia's style guidelines for yourself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks
The specific rule in question states:
With the exception that immediately follows, trademarks promoted without any capitals are capitalized like any other:
avoid: The television show thirtysomething is a television show that could have been sponsored by adidas, but not by craigslist, because the show was over before craigslist existed.
instead, use: The television show Thirtysomething is a television show that could have been sponsored by Adidas, but not by Craigslist, because the show was over before Craigslist existed.
The exception is trademarks that begin with a one-letter lowercase prefix pronounced as a separate letter. These are often not capitalized if the second letter is capitalized, but should otherwise follow normal capitalization rules:
avoid: He said that EBay is where he bought his IPod.
instead, use: He said that eBay is where he bought his iPod.
GHD falls into the first of these two categories. Should the GHD page be updated to reflect this policy?
Koyaanisqatsi69 (talk) 06:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  ghd vs GHD