Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vegepet

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. Complex/_Rational 16:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vegepet

Vegepet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article "Vegepet" merits inclusion in Wikipedia due to several reasons:

• Notable Subject: Vegepet is a significant topic within the realm of veganism and pet care, addressing the growing interest in providing vegan diets for pets.
• Relevant Information: The article provides valuable information about the concept of vegetarian and vegan pet food, contributing to the understanding of alternative diets for pets.
• Community Interest: There is evident interest in the subject, as demonstrated by the ongoing discussion and contributions from Wikipedia users. This indicates that the topic is relevant and worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia.
• Educational Value: Including information about Vegepet aligns with Wikipedia's goal of providing comprehensive and informative content to its readers. It allows individuals to learn about different dietary options for pets and the ethical considerations involved.
• Neutral Presentation: The article presents information in a neutral manner, providing facts and references to support its content. It adheres to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding neutrality and verifiability.

Given these reasons, the article "Vegepet" should be retained on Wikipedia to continue serving as a valuable resource for individuals interested in vegetarian and vegan pet food options. MaynardClark (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you write that yourself? What you have presented here looks like something an AI would write. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article MaynardClark (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC) I would like to know where this slice of vegetarian and vegan pet food research fits into the longstanding historical forward movement of the topic. MaynardClark (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there are suitable sources then post them: the onus is on you to provide them. I have already done a search for sources too but found nothing. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VegePet "made news" in its time (from the mid-1990s through 2010) by being a pioneering brand in the field of vegan pet nutrition. Developed by Jim Peden and his then-wife, Barbara Lynn Peden, VegePet was among the first to offer plant-exclusive dietary solutions for pets, specifically dogs and cats. This was significant because it addressed the ethical concerns of feeding pets without harming other animals, aligning with the principles of veganism and vegetarianism.

Key Points:

• Innovative Approach: VegePet introduced VegeDog and VegeCat, DIY pet food supplements that allowed pet owners to prepare nutritionally complete vegan meals for their pets. This was innovative at a time when commercial vegan pet food options were extremely limited.

  Historical Context: The development of VegePet occurred before the widespread use of the Internet, which means it gained traction through word of mouth, niche publications, and communities interested in veganism and ethical pet care.

  Media Coverage: Publications like Vegetarian Times mentioned VegePet in several articles, highlighting its role in the emerging market of plant-based pet foods. This helped establish its credibility and spread awareness among vegetarians and vegans who were looking for ethical feeding options for their pets.

  Ongoing Development: The Pedens' continuous product development and the eventual competition from other companies entering the plant-exclusive pet food market kept the conversation around vegan pet diets alive, contributing to its historical significance.

  Limited Online Presence: Despite its contributions, VegePet is not widely praised on the Internet, possibly due to its early development before the digital age and the rise of newer brands that utilized online marketing strategies more effectively. However, I have found at least two articles in Vegetarian Times that praised VegeDog at the time. This article needs time for more development.MaynardClark (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, this reads like an AI chatbot wrote it. This is highly concerning. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, doesn't meet
  WP:NSUSTAINED). Being mentioned when media outlets write about vegetarian diets and supplements for pets doesn't make it Wikipedia-notable. (If the article is kept, it needs serious pruning to remove unrelated content and promotional content.) Schazjmd (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

This article has survived an

WP:GNG

- says that Notability does not expire.

Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article Quite a few 'delete' votes are about (a) current state of sourcing in the article OR (b) whether or not the innovative Vegepet product of the 1980s is optimal by today's veterinary nutritional standards, which is not the

WP:GNG we are taught to follow. MaynardClark (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@MaynardClark, I can't find a previous afd for this article, could you please link to it? Schazjmd (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit misleading to say Quite a few 'delete' votes are about...whether or not the innovative Vegepet product of the 1980s is optimal by today's veterinary nutritional standards since there's only the nominator and me, and neither of us have mentioned veterinary nutritional standards. Schazjmd (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. This is the only AfD. I looked at the first history screen when I had been reviewing the article's history and somehow ended up on the most recent screen. My bad! Sorry. I've been busy with other things and don't really have time for an AfD right now, but I'm pushing myself to look for references. I apologize. That is my error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaynardClark (talk • contribs) 0236 23 May 2024 (UTC (UTC)

• Delete. If kept, rename and immprove. It's a poor quality article, full of irrelevant information that is nothing to do with the subject of the article (I have trimmed some of it, but it needs a lot more). I vote for delete, as both the company and product do not meet the notability requirements. If retained I recommend it is moved to Compassion Circle and adapted into an article about the company that includes some appropriate content on the product. Not that the company appears to meet the GNG either. MarcGarver (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Vegepet is notable as a pioneering brand in vegan pet nutrition, offering innovative plant-based dietary solutions for pets and contributing to the discussion of ethical feeding options.MaynardClark (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that this is a discussion, not a count of votes, so adding the "keep" here was unnecessary. You already made a statement earlier. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article is a
  WP:NCORP are both failed. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 03:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

What to do about coatracks - Article gives constructive advice; perhaps follow that advice. But the article was about Vegepet and its contributions at the time as the basis of its notability - at the time of its innovations. We know that, later on, other famous persons have entered the fray with meatless pet foods, including

Good Food Institute (generally alt-meat or 'meatless meat'). I could have wanted to see more of a timeline approach - in a much different article - about the innovations in meatless pet foods over the millennia (and in the 20th and 21st centuries). But that would be a different article (or a 'main article' on a related topic, perhaps to be cited within the article. But we could think of words like obscured, overlooked, unheralded, neglected, unsung, forgotten, marginalized, underappreciated, anonymous, and unrecognized to describe this profound historical contributor who risks being glossed over and forgotten because nothing was written about them by historians of stature in a pre-inernet period, and available content written about the Pedens (this contributor) is treated dismissively because what remains seems to be from 'movement allies' who wanted solutions to the moral dilemma of killing some animals (called 'food animals') to feed their preferred animals (called 'pets'). I am thinking that Barbara Lynn Peden's book (allied with their development of these supplements, to frame their rationale for their products), Dogs and Cats Go Vegetarian, was or may have been self-published. Their philosophy may have reflected their historical period's lay assumptions that we can get all the nutrients through supplementation, so feeding products should emphasize marketability and user satisfaction (nutritional completeness, pet palatability, pet digestibility, etc.), all considered to be 'solvable challenges' in their approach. Sure, they seem to have been innovative (in the 'DIY tradition'), and we may not even know how sustainable it is or was. But it's an idea, and it seems to have fallen to others to develop from where they left off, and now the vegan pet food industry seems to have hundreds of millions of dollars in it. Maybe the Pedens went bankrupt and/or sold off their IP and other assets 'in a fire sale' because the entity 'Compassion Circle' seems to have become one major distributor for the book and pet products (others also sell VegePet). The backstory on Compassion Circle may be a nonprofit that it is (or was) run by Kim Sheridan, a naturopath who started this nonprofit which (in early 2015) became a distributor for VegePet in 2015, and also in 2015, began filming interviews for a film, The Vegan Pet Paradigm: Toward a World Where All Animals are Healthy, Long-Lived, and Free of Suffering. Thus, they are concerned with veganization of human companion animals. Kim Sheridan, ND, is married to naturopath, Jareth Sheridan, ND, and they practice naturopathy and do other work in their spare time; Kim Sheridan has written two 'metaphysical books'. Their website used to be http:www.VeganPets.com, but The Wayback Machine cannot crawl that domain, and Compassion Circle had announced in a March 16. 2015 e-mail that they had acquired the assets from Jim Peden (who was 'moving on' to do other creative vegan things, like writing novels). But I found their promotional website on Alignable. This article is not about them for various reasons. Without a strong historical presence, it seems that VegePet may have fizzled out, but it is being manufactured, and we don't know where it is produced, nor by whom. Vecado of Canada also markets VegePet products, along with other supports for plant-based pets. If an article is historical, what is the current standard against which earlier claims are being compared, and what did those historical actors think that they were improving or making possible? MaynardClark (talk) 03:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi @MaynardClark:: I appreciate that you've done your research on this subject, but—with all respect—your comment above mirrors everything that is wrong with the article: Tons and tons of background and reasons why we should care and notable people involved with similar product lines and business ideas, but essentially nothing at all about VegePet products or the company who makes them. And from my limited research, it appears there isn't anything about VegePet out there that isn't from a vendor, i.e. non-independent. If we want to have an article about Compassion Circle or veganism in animals, great, we can do that, but this article is supposed to be about VegePet products. If you want to keep the article, you need to find suitable sources about that specific topic rather than giving us a dissertation on all the visionaries who have worked in the plant-based pet food industry.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per all the above. There doesn't seem to be any substantial independent coverage of the purported subject of the article. Some of what is here could perhaps be included in an article about supplements for vegetarian pets, or possibly included in the
  vegetarian dog food article, but here it's (as already noted) a coatrack. Remove the coats and there's virtually nothing left. Brunton (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

But these objections included in Delete votes are untrue claims. There are numerous Vegetarian Times articles over several years, and Vegetarian Times is independent of what any enterprising inventor does. MaynardClark (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The "Vegepet" Wikipedia article should be deleted for several reasons. First, it fails to meet notability guidelines, as it hasn't received significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. Second, the content of the article is overly promotional, reading more like an advertisement rather than an impartial encyclopedic entry, which violates the neutral point of view policy. Finally, the article lacks sufficient verifiable information, relying heavily on primary sources and unverifiable claims, thus not meeting Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and reliability. 12.75.41.103 (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The first two sections read like an ad, seem to be machine-generated content, and don't establish notability. The "Study" section (written by a different editor) summarizes a real study, and if the summary is correct, then it contradicts the ad copy that makes up most of the article. Anything that can salvaged can be placed better in context in the articles listed under "See also", Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:49, 27 May 2024 (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.