Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PetCode (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 delete. Missvain (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PetCode

[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)

completely and utterly non-notable super spammed startup with no meaningful indepth coverage BEACHIDICAE🌊 21:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G4. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment notability-wise, it seems like a feel-good-one-time story. Also, what is the point of an online database if you only have one pet? This seems like it could be replaced by a piece of paper and a pencil in the kitchen drawer. Might be popular among 80 year old recluses who have twenty cats. Signed, not a young whippersnapper.--- Possibly (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most of the sources seem good enough. I couldn't find any signs of spammy content. Regarding WP:PROMO mentioned in the previous nomination, the current article doesn't seem promotional any longer. Therefore, I object the deletion. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being good enough and seeming good enough are two different matters. Only one is important here and this is a far cry from it. BEACHIDICAE🌊 22:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can explain why you don't like the sources. I've merged 2 duplicate references. One of the remaining references is PR. The rest are fine for me. Forbes, NBC... Dr.KBAHT (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - paid-for spam, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arnuvtandon. MER-C 15:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much like Dr.KBAHT I see some references that seem to meet WP:GNG Jeepday (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No one has provided a single keep vote based on actual sources - nor have they provided sources or relevant policy that allows us to ignore WP:V. BEACHIDICAE🌊 17:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails verifiability and notability. -- Dane ^talk 18:34, 1 June 2021 (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.