Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nail Communications


 * 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 Nomination (in essence) withdrawn. (non-admin closure)  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 05:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Nail Communications

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Serious doubts about the notability of this business. Most of the sources are from their own social media sites or work they claim to have produced. The remaining appear to be small, frivolous mentions in relation to their clients, mainly the food bank. Dolescum (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that they've done some work that has gained national attention, including Nothing, Mike and Ike, and Vibram. I'd put the agency in the same category as Bailey Lauerman. Orangesm (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There are a couple of sources on the Bailey Lauerman article that just about scrape notability. Not so in the article you've written on Nail. The food bank itself as well as the other things you've mentioned seem notable in varying degrees from those references, but I feel you're trying to inherit notability from those. Additionally, such heavy referencing to their linkedin and facebook pages falls foul of our guidelines on self-published sources. If I take those out, there's not really anything left, is there? Dolescum (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a few more sources and will continue to look. It's always difficult to find precise dates anywhere other than "self-published" sources. I think if anything, the page needs a little editing, not a deletion. Orangesm (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You've added a blog post from Rhode Island small business journal and a couple of pieces from sites targetting the city of Providence. I'm still not convinced at all this is 'significant coverage' that is 'independent of the subject' as per WP:GNG, in addition to my concerns above. Dolescum (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The other issue becomes that most written documentation from notable sources like Ad Week etc is mostly inaccessible. I think we need a fresh pair of eyes to step in and evaluate/edit. Orangesm (talk) 02:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey folks, thought I'd step in and help out. I removed all the self-published sources and did a bit of cleanup on the page. Any additional thoughts, or can we close this discussion? Arthritix (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Arthritix, thanks for digging out some extra sources. Your Google bubble seems to be treating you a lot more kindly on this matter than mine did! ;)
 * Your improvements have assuaged my doubts somewhat. If you're happy to close as keep, I can live with that. Thanks again, for getting involved. Dolescum (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you for helping. Orangesm (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. I'll let someone who hasn't been involved in the debate close. Arthritix (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:02, 26 August 2013 (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.