Talk:Veet

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 July 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was Withdrawn.

Re-write or Clean-up

Anyone willing to help me re-write or clean this article up? (Also, I didn't realize that I wasn't logged in when I edited the page. The edits by 66.128.245.49 are mine.) DinosaurRAWRZ (talk) 00:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just did a bunch of clean-up. Could use more work on the product itself, how it works, and maybe more on its advertising which appears to be pretty well covered in independent sources. You're welcome. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 19:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can I just say that I searched up other hair removal products including Nad's and Sally Hansen, and there were no Wikipedia pages for these products. I feel that the harsh comments like "this is a hoax" were completely unnecessary 11coolguy12 (talk) 09:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where were these comments? It's not really clear to me what people were calling a hoax. Surely, they weren't saying that Nad's or Sally Hansen products don't exist, right? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"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) 11coolguy12 (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On what page? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion page for the deletion of it. Some people got really mad because I nominated it - but there are a lot more well-known products (like I said, Sally Hansen/Nads) which don't have Wiki pages so that's the only reason why I nominated it for deletion. 11coolguy12 (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If those other products don't got articles about them and they are more well known, it would make much more sense to create those articles than to delete this one. Deleting this one would only make things worse. --TiagoTiago (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about "according to established science facts"?

Just saying "according to the company" without balancing it with other statements sounds biased; sounds like the article is trying to imply the company is lying without saying it explicitly. The article should include information from independent sources on the effects of the product, if any. --TiagoTiago (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that saying "according to the company" implies anything other than "this information is from the company." Yes, independent sources are usually better, but when it comes to claims about the intended effect of products, it's important to attribute the source. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 15:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Immac

Odd that the name Veet originated in the UK, as fair as I remember it was always called Immac in Britain until recent decades. There's no info about when and where this named was used.Gymnophoria (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Capital 'H' needed on the 'Type' section at the beginning of the article

A capital 'H' instead a lower-case 'h' is needed on the word 'hairstyling' on the 'Type' section at the beginning of the article. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]