Talk:Manscaped

Was draftification the correct choice?
The editor who returned this project to draft: User:CommanderWaterford has been banned from editing the English Wikipedia.

Please could an editor review this decision in light of the circumstances, or re-publish the page pending review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iskandar 323 (talk • contribs)

Source analysis
I analysed this permalink

Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 14:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @Timtrent: If you have a moment, I was wondering if you would consider taking another look at your source assessment table - I have subsequently removed a number of priorly proposed sources from the page and added a number of new ones, and I have similarly removed the deleted links from the source assessment table, and placed the sources that I think most likely to pass muster under WP:GNG notability guidelines at the top of the table. I have not in any way modified your original comments for the remaining six original sources, or otherwise attempted to interfere with the assessment. Iskandar 323 (talk) 07:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @Iskandar 323 I am sorry, I do not have the time right now.  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 08:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Iskandar 323, it really isn't good to rework the old table. Better to collapse the old table and make a new one. And then, be sure that it only has THREE (3) sources that you are asking others to review.
 * It really is unreasonable to ask someone to review changes in a table of ten entries. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @SmokeyJoe Timtrent originally created the table voluntarily with all of the sources included. I just followed his lead. I made no alterations, but the old table had become confusing, as it contained a large number of sources that had already been removed, so I reworked it to preserve Timtrent's existing assessment of six of the sources, while adding the new unassessed sources (question marks in all columns). And, as I mentioned, the most notable sources are at the top, so anyone is able to simply assess just the top three if they are interested. Iskandar 323 (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:THREE query
User:Iskandar 323, can you please tell me here, your nominated WP:THREE best sources for demonstrating notability?User:Iskandar 323 SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * While a tricky exercise for this page, I believe the three best sources are: the Bloomberg, Bloomberg Quint and Wall Street Journal pieces - the first two of these are dedicated financial reporting, the first written with no comment from the company, and the second including only the briefest of bland statements from the CEO, but deriving no other information from official channels. Both, in my mind, are therefore secondary, independent sources demonstrating significant coverage. The WSJ significantly covers the company as part of a broader, contextualised discussion on the subject of 'Manscaping'. I would argue that the brief quote from the CEO in the fourth paragraph does not detract from the overall, secondary, independent and contextualised nature of the discussion. The CNBC piece is a fourth option that arguably qualifies based on WP:RS/PS consensus and on the principle of notable coverage.
 * The other sources included do not necessarily help in establishing notability, but all provide useful context and detail on individual aspects of the narrative in the page. At least one editor advocated for one source per fact, and that is all that is being attempted here. Iskandar 323 (talk) 08:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Iskandar_323,
 * 1.  [the Bloomberg]  Broken link for me.  Can you quote two paragraphs of independent comment?
 * 2.  Also a broken link.
 * 3.   Also a broken link. This works for me.  In my opinion, this article supports a topic "Manscaping saturation advertising", or "Manscaping" the general topic, no longer a 2007 neologism, but it does not support an article on the selected commercial product.  It does lead me to https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1557988316661315, which is I think the way you should go.  Look at the general topic, get the general topic improved, before attempting to write product articles dependent on the general topic. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * My apologies for messing up the formats of those links: they're fixed now. As you have noted, there are separate article on both hair removal (where manscaping is already mentioned) and male grooming - a section about the neologism could possible be included on one of these pages, but a dedicated page seems hardly necessary. I provided the WSJ source because in your comments on your talk page, you specifically requested some "perspective writing [...] couched in the general topic" User_talk:SmokeyJoe, so I thought this might be what you were looking for - as a general piece about manscaping that also includes significant coverage of Manscaped. It is not an article about saturation advertising, but about the ways in which the approach to advertising for male grooming products are changing, quoting academics and linking to studies on the subject - it simply leads with one example of manscaping advertisement, which in this case happens to be about Manscaped. If you were in the market for perspective writing, this would be it. If this is not to your liking, however, you are welcome to consider the CNBC source instead.Iskandar 323 (talk) 06:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Source analysis
WP:THREE sources, August 2021

Potential linking
Upon creation, this article was linked to a list of notable companies that emerged from the Shark Tank series: this permalink - this link was removed after the article was returned to draftspace, but should the article be deemed notable again, the entry would be valid once more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iskandar 323 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)