Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veet

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The result was Withdrawn. Nominator withdrew their nomination after independent, reliable sources were found, and existing votes support keeping the article. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 16:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Veet[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is written like an advertisement and there is nothing to suggest any relevance of the subject. Therefore I think it should be deleted :) 11coolguy12 (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep This is an extremely notable hair removal product, apparently in more than one country. This product/brnad has been around for a century. I've seen TV commercials. This article isn't written like an advertisement; it's a stub. I see no rationale to delete, based on the nom's argument. I have to assume good faith for this AfD nomination, but this almost seems like a hoax. Roodog2k (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is no shortage of third party sources for this well known product and plenty of scope for article expansion. The article clearly needs work however. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the product is notable - but its just a product - how far down the food chain does this encyclopedia go? Mark^Dask 17:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current form of the article is unacceptable, but that has pretty much no bearing on the current discussion. Veet is a product that has received significant coverage in independent sources. I think the concern here is that the product may not be sufficiently covered indpendently from its company, Reckitt Benckiser. But, with a careful search, it definitely is. How are you covered, Veet? Let me count the ways:

Multiple reviews of the product.
This article from The Sunday Times which calls Veet a "power brand" and that it is the best known of 18 similar products in Britain.
Independent coverage of a Veet campaign following students in Malaysia.

So, all that said, I think this is a definite keep as it meet WP:GNG for coverage. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 19:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certainly notable. The article just needs some time to grow out a bit. Several Times (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for nominating it then :( but it should really be cleaned up 11coolguy12 (talk) 11:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this is something that should be said in many AfD discussions, but don't ask other people to work on articles that you take the time to nominate for deletion. There were several good sources found here, and your response is "someone should do something." Why not take the time to help find more sources, or actually edit the article? If you are willing to take the time to nominate an article for deletion, you should be just as willing to help clean it up when good sources are found. That said, I will clean up the article today. Also, I'm going to speedily close this AfD as the nominator has basically withdrawn their nomination and all discussion points have supported keeping the article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 15:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.