Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vets4pets

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 merge to Pets at Home. Black Kite (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vets4pets[edit]

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

Clear advertising as my PROD still confirms since literally everything, even the books, themselves are still PR advertising, always caring to specify either "The company has this to say today", "The company says", "Words from the company are", etc. and none of that satisfies policy WP:NOT; let alone, the fact the article itself has clear employee advertising including the account Vets4pets-webmaster account, and it's not surprising because this was mistakenly accepted from AfC when no one cared to actually see and acknowledge it. Also, the fact everything is still so blatant, there's no hopeful chances of improvements since it shows it's been removed and restored, because it's clear the company wants this as advertising. I'll know that even searches at local newspapers finds only published and republished company information, naturally from the company itself. There's never any inherited notability exchanges for advertising, especially when it's clear anything available is still once again PR advertising. SwisterTwister talk 16:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but CLEAN UP. Articles in Guernsey press, plus The Telegraph in Argus and The Guardian. Cut it down to a stub and remove all promo. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and as mentioned above, remove anything overly promotional. There are only three UK vets with entries as far as I can see, this is actually the largest. Shritwod (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That still means nothing if the available sources are simply trivial anf unconvincing announcements and company notices, and also if policy WP:NOT still applies. None of the commentd above have actually cited policy, let alone one that would be against WP:NOT. Also, if everything advert-like was removed, all that would exist here is the basic information and that:s not what establishes notability, because the article would only be a business listing. SwisterTwister talk 18:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if it wasn't clear. Policy cited was it meets WP:GNG through coverage. Just out cut out the promo. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've edited the article and removed a lot of promotional content/spam. In my view, the references do not get this topic over the line of the criteria set out at WP:CORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the successor company, Pets at Home, which is apparently the largest UK company in its field, and thereforenotable. That's our usualway of handling things when a small company is brought by a larger, instead of makigntwo separate article. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It actually operates like an in-store concession with its own branding. But that's a reasonable approach. Shritwod (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2016 (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.