Talk:Good Hair Day

Untitled

• 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)

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)

• I dont understand. What are you saying is wrong with it? Oo

xx Iamandrewrice (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• • It reads like an advertisement. Also, I'm about 99% sure those photos weren't taken by you. I've removed the completely inappropriate pricing info. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Spam

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)

FIRSTLY!

THOSE PHOTOS WERE TAKEN BY ME THANK YOU VERY MUCH! AND I AM VERY ANGRY THAT YOU CHOOSE NOT TO THINK THEY WERE! GIVEN NO SUCH REASON TO! OMG HOW DARE YOU?!

and secondly, this is not spam! I have included several citations and pictures as it is!

like seriously?! what is your problem with it? Iamandrewrice (talk) 13:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You know what? It really doesn't matter if they were or not so I'll retract my doubts and offer yopu an apology for assuming bad faith. I'm not sure why you can't see that this reads like an advertisement. The stubbed version was fine but you sem to misunderstand something. I'm not saying the brand and company isn't notable - I'm saying that the current version would require a complete rewrite which makes it a valid candidate for speedy deletion. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well Thank you for your appology. I respect that.

However, I did in fact take the images myself... i did it this morning actually.

And also, I'm sorry, tried to make the article as good as I could... I did not intend for it to read like an advertisement.

I am not entirely sure how it does?

Could you expand on that?

Iamandrewrice (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay first of all: This clearly isn't going to be speedy deleted. I disagree with that decision but I'll respect that. As for taking it to Articles for Deletion it would stand a poor chance of getting deleted mainly because the company clearly is notable. So, what we have here is an old fashioned content dispute.

The best way to avoind people tagging your articles with the advertising tag is to write in a neutral, informative and consise language. Why did we need to know the price of specific irons? Like Guy suggested earlier try to include some more about the company history - use their website for that. Look them up on Google News and try to find some examples of the company being mentioned by the press. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well ok I will try to rewrite it more neutrally, but can't you help as well?
and that Duke of Whitstable put it up for deletion... again...
Iamandrewrice (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. To begin with consider this line from the article:

The ceramic technology allows for softer damaging impacts on the hair caused by the severe heat

Without a source for that claim it reads like an endorsement of the product. If you add a reliable source it turns into a new piece of sourced valuable information. This is why I think you should have worked more on this in user space before creating it in main space. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

i have done it i have done it...

what do you think of the whole thing now? (:

Iamandrewrice (talk) 14:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

What do you mean?!
The sources are all reliable that I found... I will go have a look at the dead link though... Iamandrewrice (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"...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)

well regardless of that... if that is now the only bit that isnt good enough, surely it does not need to be put up for deletion any more... Iamandrewrice (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

But i don't think it needs that anymore, as surely 6 citations is enough to prove its notability? Oo Iamandrewrice (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

well to be honest i dont really no what else to say... like I have tried and tried to show you how famous the brand is... but being men (well I assume that from the 'Guy' and 'Duke' parts in your name), you seem to be completely oblivious to the women's brand, even though I must admit that many men use GHDs now anyway... but i just dont understand what more you want... go up to anyone in the street and ask them if they have GHD's, and they will understand. Ask someone if they have 'GHDd their hair' and most people will still understand... I just really dont get how you seem not to grasp the sheer scale of this company. Its like bigger than all the other hair iron company's here... but you list them... Iamandrewrice (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Ok... answer me this truthfully... if the word 'ghd' were to become a word in the english language, other than the noun of the object of which it describes. For example, 'I am going to GHD my hair,' do you not think it surely must be notable?
Well, then try typing in this: "GHD'd hair" on google... and look at how many times it is used in verbial context. Iamandrewrice (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Ok i dont even want to know why you have searched those before... but that is besides the point... for instance, if I type in 'aqua penis' as you mention, on google, although there are many returns, few of them are actually related to the phrase 'aqua penis,' with those two words next to each other... whereas in my example, nearly all the returns had the wording used in context. Do you understand what I'm saying here? Iamandrewrice (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

THE ARTICLE IS NOW NOTABLE FOR SURE! im pretty sure anyway... well if its involved with some VERY famous fashion shows, im sure that contributes... Iamandrewrice (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Your last point doesnt even make sense!
my advise to you would be to go take a good look at your contributions to wikipedia and see if you could better them! Rather than trying to disrupt this perfectly fine piece of work... i dont see anyone else complaining about it anymore... NO... only YOU! Iamandrewrice (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

• But that duke person keeps wanting to just delete the whole thing! Iamandrewrice (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have tried so so hard on this... and every time I do something, he simply argues that its never good enough, even though all the other users seem not to back up his oppinion anymore. I really do not see how it is currently still in an 'advertisement style' for a start. And secondly, i don't get why the fact that it has been involved in fashion shows, and burglaries, and whatever else is now mentioned on the page, does not make it 'notable'. Iamandrewrice (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

I am trying to improve it, but i really don't see what else there is to do apart from adding additional information and pictures about the product itself... Iamandrewrice (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Here are some reviews:

http://www.reviewcentre.com/reviews6033.html http://www.kelkoo.co.uk/prl_9445942/133401.html http://www.dooyoo.co.uk/hair-care/ghd-professional-ceramic-straighteners/reviews/ http://www.folica.com/GHD_Hair_Straig_r1936_1.html

...would they do? Iamandrewrice (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Ryan Hillen

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)

Fixed —αlεx•mullεr 21:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

James McCallister

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)

This article needs major work

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))

Rewritten

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)

My thoughts

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)

ghd vs GHD

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

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)

References