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 keep. As noted, WP:NPOV concerns aside, the article is sufficiently sourced to pass WP:GNG. While it may well need to be rewritten, it can be sufficiently improved through normal editting. Rollidan (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cruelty-free[edit]

Cruelty-free (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)

This article started out as a school project ten years ago and it still shows. It has not significantly improved since then and employs language which lacks objectivity. I also fail to see how it contributes anything that is not already covered in the well-written article on Testing cosmetics on animals which explains the term "cruelty free" in its third paragraph and has a section on non-profits like "Cruelty Free International."

The following passages illustrate my concerns with objectivity:

• "tests are often painful and cause the suffering and death of millions of animals every year"
• "guinea pigs are sometimes forced to eat or inhale substances"
• "they are killed and cut open to examine the effects"
• "animal testing is being replaced with quicker, cheaper and more accurate methods"

I therefore propose the deletion of this article. Caecilia24 (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is well sourced, not all such content is found elsewhere on testing cosmetics on animals. The suggestions above look like suggestions to improve the article, not delete. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I believe the problems highlighted here are more suggestions for improvement and do not meet the criteria for deletion. Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I share your concern to first consider alternatives to deletion, but this article would have to be rewritten in its entirety and given that its topic is already well-covered in the two articles I mentioned above, I don't see a need to do so. The passages I mentioned were only examples meant to illustrate a broader pattern of a lack of objectivity and improper style. Caecilia24 (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The article started in 2004, not ten years ago, and did not start as a school project. Uncle G (talk) 07:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Uncle G: You're technically correct. The article started 13:42, 1 February 2004 as a five-sentence explanation of the word "cruelty-free". It remained nearly unchanged until 02:41, 17 February 2011 when Lizmarion made edits that were reverted on 06:45, 28 June 2011‎ by SQGibbon because they suffered the same problems that I am addressing today: "OR, POV, unsourced claims, editorializing, etc."

    However, the bulk of the article was written roughly ten years ago on 14:08, 4 April 2013‎ by NewKindofMedia as part of "a school assignment" and "first ever wiki edit". These edits have stayed in place since then and the article has not materially improved. Caecilia24 (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Again, you haven't got it right, though. It didn't start as an explanation of words, at all. It started out as an article about "the cruelty-free movement", and that was how it was first expanded. Sad to say, no-one had read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (adjectives) in all of those years. Ironically, what it should have been about all along, and indeed part of it tried to be, was about cruelty-free labels and products. There's a fair amount to say, from academic sources no less, about the product labelling. I've put two good sources for stuff that Wikipedia does not have anywhere into the Further Reading. The first is useful for its preliminaries which address market impact and supply chains, and indicate further avenues for finding sources with the sources that it cites. The second has to be used with care, but Wikipedia does not even mention a Humane Cosmetics Standard.

      An editor coming along in 2022 and doing the bare-minimum before-nomination work of a Google Books search should notice that Testing cosmetics on animals mentions naught about these, and perhaps try to tell poor readers like me what the HCS is. But even one who did not notice the copious opportunity for writing more and better would be capable, even if xe didn't have an account, of dealing with the overlap using just the ordinary editing tool, as we know what to do with Wikipedia:duplicate articles. An editor who had seen SQGibbon's edits should know exactly how to deal with the things that you mention in your nomination, because there's the example right in front of that editor's very nose.

      Bringing it to AFD, in contrast, is not only a waste of 3 edits, but a waste of other people's time on a problem that you were quite capable of dealing with yourself. I suggest that you try to write Wikipedia so that it tells poor readers like me what this HCS that people talk about is. Because we poor readers currently have to understand Finnish at fi:Testattu ilman eläinkokeita -standardi or Vietnamese at vi:The Body Shop to find out from Wikipedia anything at all about it.

      Uncle G (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      • I was correct in stating that this article in its current form is largely the product of a school assignment and that it has had glaring issues with POV and editorializing for the last 10 years. Both of which you initially disputed. Caecilia24 (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good grief! You don't even get your own nomination right. "This article started out as a school project ten years ago" is what you actually said, visible right there above, and you clearly were not correct. You cannot even get what I said correct, which didn't say anything about editorialization, the only person having mentioned that is you. Uncle G (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - if an article needs improvement, you don’t delete it, you improve it. If an article has NPOV concerns, there’s a separate template for that. However, I don’t understand why any of those examples are not considered objective if they are supported by citations. Just because a fact is grisly doesn’t make it subjective. --awkwafaba (📥) 15:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I definitely notice some WP:POV issues within the article and a need for more independent non-advocacy sources, but the term itself is notable. KoA (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2022 (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.