Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vegan design


 * 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 delete. Huge WP:COI problems, among others. Any redirect is an editorial decision.  Sandstein  12:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Vegan design

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG, unsourced and CoI by creator. Likely no more than a POV-fork. Kleuske (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC) Cayla Mackey at Unicorn Goods (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Five sources have been added to increase objectivity making this in line with WP:GNG
 * Delete. One editor,, created the page vegan design without use of sources, and edited veganism here with information defining/promoting vegan design according to only her interpretation. Given that Unicorn Goods is a "vegan design" company and the editor is the founder/owner (WP user name is part of company name), this is clear conflict of interest and promotional, a violation of Wikipedia policy per WP:PROMO. The editor's additional sources are themselves promotional and WP:PEA. Further discussion here. --Zefr (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It is possible for COI editors to write objectively. As the article stands now, it isn't promotional, and doesn't seem to bear any connection to the author's employer except by subject area. What we need to determine is whether the subject is notable. At the moment, given the sources currently in the article, maybe, but I'm on the fence. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * let's be clear about a few things concerning COI on this topic. 1) the article was created by a user who created a username identifying her employer, Unicorn Goods, a vegan design company; 2) the same user has attempted, and failed by your own response, to create an article about Unicorn Goods, here; 3) in earlier edits here, the user includes references which center around PETA, a soapbox organization promoting veganism, therefore revealing WP:PROMO and WP:SOAP. Reviewing WP:COI, there are numerous areas of concern, not least of which how misleading this article would be if we were not contesting it based on objectivity and propriety. --Zefr (talk) 01:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And all of those points have exactly zero relevance to the basic question to be answered in an AFD discussion: Is the topic notable? I think it might be, as there are valid references (which you have repeatedly removed) covering the topic. Coverage of a PETA event by a reliable source like the Los Angeles Times is still coverage by a reliable source. You haven't yet offered any reasons grounded in Wikipedia policy why the topic isn't notable. COI isn't valid grounds to delete, particularly if the article isn't promotional (which it isn't). ~Anachronist (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I disputed the quality of references here and here, with edit explanations that they contain blog, soapbox and/or commercially promotional content. As for notability, edits were made to this section of the Veganism article to accommodate content on vegan personal items. The article name, "Vegan design", is rare or absent from secondary sources, and appears to be a novel term the article creator wishes to use as unique for her own company's marketing, contested here. --Zefr (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose deletion. The editor is transparent about connection to a vegan design company, in line with WP:UN. This entry is written concisely and objectively, is cited, and is not in violation of WP:GNG, WP:PROMO or WP:PEA. The editor has no connection to the cited sources. Editor is not referenced in the entry or referred to, nor is any company or organization with connection to the editor.--Cayla Mackey at Unicorn Goods (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete this is a WP:DICTDEF of a non-notable neologism. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources about the term have been added. - Cayla Mackey at Unicorn Goods (talk) 05:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's only a dictionary definition because the bulk of the article gets blanked by one editor every time it is expanded. There are some possibly decent references cited in the longer versions found in the article history. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect/merge to Veganism. At best this is a neologism and certainly too soon. A sentence or two to the effect that fashion and other products are being designed with vegan philosophies in mind should suffice at this stage. If and when "vegan design" becomes a real thing, a separate article might be appropriate, but not now. Derek Andrews (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with that a minor edit can be made to Veganism, so I added to the content here. In reviewing the several references offered in one edit yesterday, nearly all references were promotional, and the term "vegan design" was not used. I sense the creator of this article is trying to establish a business advantage and marketing term through this page. The COI revealed on her Talk page should disqualify further edits until the COI is resolved as it applies to the article, "Vegan design". --Zefr (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep but move to draft space for further improvement. Draft space is the proper venue for COI authors anyway, and the author here has a COI regarding this subject. The continual blanking of the author's good-faith attempts to add reliable sources is getting nowhere. There seems to be a WP:OWN problem on multiple sides. It isn't suitable for main space in its current 2-sentence form, and the blanked parts contain potentially useful wikilinks and references. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It seems there is a reasonable consensus not to retain the article as is, but are we going to draftify, delete, or merge & redirect?
 * Delete or at best move to draft space. It doesn't help that User:Zefr is deleting the article as fast as it is being created. However, I'm not convinced the term isn't a neologism and too premature to support a Wikipedia article. There are non-animal products being developed and created, but this can be covered in Veganism. Sionk (talk) 21:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to vegannism. Plausible search term. PhilKnight (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Delete or move to draft space.  The sourcing is inadequate, in part because soruces are problematic.  The first, appears to be an promoted material, because of the odd byline, it is in the LATimes, but the byline is to Women's Wear Daily and it is promoting an event sponsored by PETA]]. The second is to an activist organization.   Searches on "Vegan design" lead to blogs and activist organization.   Sourcing is just not up to prime time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:00, 24 November 2017 (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.