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)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
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:
I therefore propose the deletion of this article. Caecilia24 ( talk) 23:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
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:
I therefore propose the deletion of this article. Caecilia24 ( talk) 23:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)