Talk:Dr. Squatch

Should this article exist?

Seems like the company just made this to advertise themselves. The sources aren’t too hot either. Thefoxyfox (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I created the article, a one-time customer with no connection to them. Please feel free to improve it! Collaboration is always more welcome than criticism. It's been averaging well over 100 views daily for months, so there's certainly plenty of interest. - JGabbard (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

How do you have access to analytics of your Wikipedia article?

Maybe we should include something about the famous advertisement in the article? You know, how the blonde guy starts off by saying that "the soap I use is shit". That really grabbed my attention the first time I saw the ad on YouTube. SpicyMemes123 (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Thefoxyfox: I agree. I question the notability of this company. Having a multi-millionaire owner and running Superbowl and YouTube adverts does not make it notable, unless you include the infamy it has gained from those awful adverts. UaMaol (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

You seem to have a genuine bias against the company, and I do not think you are fit to continue to edit this article.

The sources you list for "criticism" of the company, barely mention the brand at all, let alone give enough criticism to justify half of the entire article being dedicated to how much you dislike them.

You clearly show in this comment you have made, that you personally find the ads annoying when they were on youtube. You outright admit to finding the company and its commercials, annoying. You should not be editing a neutral, bias free article if you have a personal grudge against them.

Dr. Squatch is soap marketed for men, and they have done absolutely nothing controversial. The criticism you have in your version of the article, amounts to "the commercial only had white people so we don't like it".

This is not real criticism, and is not notable whatsoever. 204.107.221.1 (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

UaMaol's criticism is not in fact in the article. For the record, I'll copy what I just put on your talk page, with a warning for disruptive editing: "The text properly reflects the two cited sources. Nothing implies that "Dr. Squatch is racist". If you feel that there is too much focus on the Superbowl ad--well, it's one single sentence, and it's got two solid sources, so that's not "half the entire article", as you incorrectly stated, but it is half of the proper secondary sourcing. You want to change the calculus? Add properly verified content." Drmies (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

OK, if what you say is true and we remove the content I added, or at least what it has been ce to, based on the current sourcing I propose the article be deleted, as like I said previously their notability is questionable. Two about-self's and a press release is not enough for notability. Book sources I could find are all passing and Google news is full or reviews and more press releases. I'm not a huge fan of deleting things from Wiki and try to improve questionable articles, like I've done here previously, however, as far as I can see there is very little notability. If you can find reliable sources to improve it go ahead and add them, but removing sourced content, even when made to reflect the sourcing less, is not ok! UaMaol (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I have to say I agree. While I enjoy Dr Squatch, its no more notable than any other generic soap company. 204.107.221.1 (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad we've found something we both agree on! :) UaMaol (talk) 10:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it should exist. Dr. Squatch is a growing brand that more and more people are interested in. But the article can and should be improved with more information about the company. Peter-T (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)