Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecobranding (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to Green marketing. Consensus is that the current article is not appropriate for wikipedia, but that the term exists. Of the two proposed redirect-targets, Green marketing has the most support. Any content relevant to Royalties (brand management agency) can of course be merged there. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ecobranding

Ecobranding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Ecobranding is not a movement; except the agency of the same name, hardly anyone has claimed to be part of this so-called movement. This is promotion for ecobranding-design.com. The claim that redesigning logos would have a meaningful reduction in their environmental impact is dubious at best, and not supported by any methodically sound scientific research. The suggestion that Google, Apple and Samsung "adopted" anything from ecobranding is blatantly false. Vexations (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry but all your arguments are all unfounded, false and biased.
  "Ecobranding is not a movement" Sorry but it is no longer written that Ecobranding is a movement on this page.
  "The claim that redesigning logos would have a meaningful reduction in their environmental" all the sources are checked (CNN, Fast Company, RTL…), when CNN writes an article about logo ink reductions with ecobranding they check before they publish. Sorry, but are you suggesting that reducing ink on billions of printed logos has no effect on the planet?
  "This is promotion for ecobranding-design.com" There are absolutely no external links to other personal or professional web sites except for the sources which all refer to authentic news web sites.
  "Google, Apple and Samsung "adopted" anything from ecobranding is blatantly false." It is written Google, Apple and Samsung had all adopted the "Dark mode" (not the ecobranding). You should check very carefully before threatening the work of others, please be careful. Thanks. Robert Petit (talk) 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Let me address the "movement" claim first.
    [1] calls ecobranding a campaign. Boyer has started a campaign called "Ecobranding"
    [2] quotes Boyer, who says Pour nous Ecobranding est un mouvement, une nouvelle philosophie design, comme le fut le flat design dans les années 2010, ou le skeuomorphisme dans les années 2000. (English:"For us Ecobranding is a movement, a new design philosophy, as was flat design in the 2010s, or skeuomorphism in the 2000s") Yes, we do have an article on Flat design and Skeuomorph. Note that in those examples, we don't have an agency by that name, or one making claims to have originated the concept.
    [3] is paywalled, no comment, sorry
    [4] refers to Boyer as saying that ecobranding is: a lens he calls “ecobranding”.
    [5] by doesn't mention ecobranding. It does talk about Boyer, and mentions that his designs have not been adopted by the companies whose logos he redesigned.
    [6] Here, ecobranding is not a methodology, a movement or a company name, it a "plan". Fastcompany actually published an other article about ecobranding (mentioned above), this one focusses on FriendUI. It fails to mention that FriendUI is not something you can use. It's not a functioning smartphone user interface.
    [7] Ad week by Tim Nudd September 26, 2017. The entire text is: "Corporate logos are reproduced millions and billions of times, which means even the smallest logo tweaks can significantly change the amount of ink used. Now, one French designer has hatched an idea for a service to help redesign brand logos—indeed, the who brand-deployment process—to be more environmentally (and economically) friendly." He doesn't say anything about the agency, or the "methodology". He doesn't even mention Boyer.
    [8] Creative Review by Eliza Williams 03/12/2019 calls the agency "Royalties Eco-Branding" The only thing it says about the company is "Royalties Eco-Branding is focused on creating a system of design that is environmentally friendly, which effects everything from the fonts to the use of digital dark mode".
    So, ecobranding is a campaign, a movement, a new design philosophy, a lens, a plan, a methodology or perhaps just the name of a company? Vexations (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me address my bias. Yes, I am biased. Aren't we all? I actually know a lot about the subject. Unfortunately, I cannot discuss the details, but I worked on projects to reduce the use of ink for a very large company (something that makes McDonalds look small) and on dark mode for a very large software company, years (if not more than a decade) before any of this occurred to Boyer and his associates. Both projects were successful and are in use now. I have fairly good idea of just how much ink is saved, but I don't think that ecobranding does, because they just do simple math, and presented design proposals. They haven't actually done any of this. Sure, their stuff "went viral". Remember that highschool science project that promised the US government could save $400M if it switched to Garamond? CNN covered that too. Turns out it wasn't quite so simple. So yeah, it bothers me that a branding agency is using Wikipedia to promote themselves using unproven claims. Their efforts were rebuffed the first time, at the first AfD, and they should not find it surprising that I still have them on my watchlist. To, perhaps not say outright, but hint at, or suggest that there is a connection somehow to Boyer's idea and what Apple and Google is disingenuous. It is WP:SYNTH, and we don't allow it. With regards to the environmental impact of saving power on OLED screens, consider that a cellphone uses something like a single-digit Kilowatt hour per year, perhaps a dollar's worth of electricity, likely less. That pales in comparison to the kind of savings you could achieve by lowering your thermostat by a single degree for those times that you're not home. A cellphone dark UI helps extend the battery life of an OLED phone. It won't save the planet. WRT promotion, you don't have to link to your own website to promote your business. And as for RTL fact-checking any of this, I don't think they got in touch with a lab to run some tests, or they would have mentioned it. Vexations (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In google books, there is a lot of mention of ecobranding as a term [9] - the furthest back mention I can see is from 1995 in the book Unasylva [10]

However, the current state of this wiki article seems wildly biased. It only focuses on the claim that this company invented the term or the idea of ecobranding, and even goes as far as to suggest that they created the "dark mode" concept for digital screens, which is not a verifiable fact.

This wiki article seems to be for the company rather than the idea, but I do not think the company in of itself is notable. Almost all of the press about the company was from an initial viral sharing in 2017 (see the company's press page [11]), and any subsequent press either: 1.) doesn't attribute the term to the company or 2.) rehashes the same exact imagery and content from the original viral sharings.

It's almost as if the company is only notable for a single event (which is a viral phenomenon), which was sharing design mockups for the concept of ecobranding. And as far as events go in WP:EVENTCRITERIA, this viral phenomenon doesn't seem to be notable because I don't see verifiable evidence that it has "enduring historical significance" or "widespread impact" -- especially since they were not the origin of the word "ecobranding."

I'm really concerned about this article in general. It seems almost as if it exists for promotional purposes for the brand "Ecobranding." The best action for this article might be to WP:BLOWITUP and start anew, because nothing currently in the page seems neutral, and the claims it makes don't seem verifiable. But I will attempt to clean up the article first. -- Whisperjanes (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge - I just realized from reading the last deletion nomination of this page that the company already has it's own page on wikipedia: Royalties (brand management agency). This ecobranding article is just about a design experiment that Royalties-Ecobranding (the name of their company: http://royalties-ecobranding.com/) created. The concept itself is not notable enough to have it's own individual page, since it only got coverage for a temporary, viral phenomenon without any historical or widespread impact (not notable under WP:EVENTCRITERIA as I mentioned above).

If the wikiarticle is meant to be about ecobranding as a general concept and how the term has been used historically, then I still think it might be better merged or redirected towards Green marketing (since I'm not sure if there is significant, in-depth coverage about this concept). -- Whisperjanes (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or "redirect", largely per Whisperjanes. The term is general and should not be given over to the one company; redirecting to "Green marketing" seems appropriate. And possibly adding more general content about the general term there, or at least suggesting at its Talk page that more should be developed about the general term. Any specific info about the one company that is worth keeping (if any) could be merged to "Royalties (brand management agency)". Outright deletion is not appropriate, IMO, per several reasons given in wp:TNTTNT (a brilliant essay if i do say so myself that counters argument for "BLOWITUP"). For one thing, keeping the redirect and its Talk page keeps connection to this AFD. --Doncram (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2020 (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.