Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vegepet

Vegepet

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCOMPANY, references are either non-independent or trivial. I did search for the company but found nothing in Google Scholar, Google Books, and Google News that'd lead me to believe it qualifies for GNG. Multiple references were added after a PROD but after reviewing all but three (one was an improper citation and the other was a broken url) I am still of the opinion it fails notability. Traumnovelle (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment review of references below.

Going through all the references I do not believe WP:GNG has been met with the changes.

Extended content

Compassion Circle sells the product, therefore not independent.
The 2023 systematic review of vegetarian pet food does not mention Vegepet.
The PETA citation is a search result and thus not a proper citation and it's unreasonable to expect anyone to look at over 300 results to verify anything.
References 4-8 do not mention Vegepet.
"Keep Your Pet Healthy the Natural Way" does not mention Vegepet.
I have not checked the 1988 book but I doubt it mentions Vegepet given it only existed for two years, if anyone can verify please do.
Sustainable Pet Food Association doesn't mention Vegepet.
Refs 13-14 don't appear to mention it but wouldn't qualify as establishing notability due to not being reliable.
The claim that the Vegan Sourcebook 'includes detailed information on VegePet' is quite false, it's a one paragraph advertisement in the appendix. Advertisements don't establish notability.
James Peden's book is self-published.
Vegetarian versus Meat-Based Diets for Companion Animals is an MDPI journal with the author of it being the author of the website, he's referencing and advertising himself in a 'scientific' journal.
This reference, once again to the SPFA, does not mention Vegepet.
The reference to Compassion Circle is not independent and cannot establish notability
The AVMA is seemingly the only good reference in this article, but I don't see an article reviewing the nutritional adequacy of the product as establishing GNG
Vegepet itself cannot establish it's own notability
The Guardian article isn't about Vegepet.
Refs 23-29 do not appear to mention Vegepet.
Reference from earlier that doesn't mention Vegepet.

31-32 Don't mention Vegepet anywhere.

First article hosted on Researchgate doesn't mention Vegepet and the latter is a broken link.

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]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:NORG (particularly WP:NPRODUCT) or WP:GNG. I concur with the source analysis by Traumnovelle. I found one newspaper article that is independent, reliable, and might be considered significant coverage,[1] but it is from 1989, and couldn't find any significant coverage since their initial release (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 AfD before, and the Wikipedia notability article - 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]