Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cat In A Flat


 * 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. Nothing in this closure acts to prevent anyone taking normal editorial actions with respect to the page, including but not limiting to merging. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Cat In A Flat

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable fails GNG Impeeriumalo (talk) 07:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Impeeriumalo (talk) 07:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Reliable sources are present like and  to support notability. Slovenichibo (talk) 07:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Several good references from reliable sources including BBC News. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete : only 2 refs to newspapers doesn't make it notable. And : Wikipedia is not a means of promotion !! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Slovenichibo and Eastmain there are good reliable sources present to qualify for GNG. Although, page can be improved further to fix other issues. Jaysonsands (talk) 08:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, articles in BBC News and Huffington Post establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, possibly speedy delete as G11, advertising. the purported references are human(or should I say cat) interest publicity, no matter where published--and the Huffington Post is worthless for notability .  They're based entiely on uncfitical interviews with the founder, and that's not a RS.  DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes notability bar. Although agree with above, article had some issues which I have fixed through cleanup and also added some more reliable sources to support notability. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The sentences + refs to more newspaper articles that you added are pure advertisement for this business, but they do not increase notability of this page. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 05:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As per I can see winning the BIMA Award and some suporting refs like NatGeo, and 2 german refs were added by Frigidpolarbear which doesn't seem promotional and were some improvements to the page. Slovenichibo (talk) 09:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Refs ONLY to newspapers do NOT make an entry to Wikipedia notable, the more so as none of these newspapers demonstrate that this business model has a significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education, see WP:ORGSIG + primary criteria for notability there. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Where in WP:GNG does it say newspapers are insufficient to establish notability? We have a source from BBC News, a national broadcaster. NemesisAT (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, see WP:ORGSIG + primary criteria for notability there. Impeeriumalo is right when stating that this page fails GNG criteria. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The BBC News source alone demonstrates the positive impacts the website has had for catsitters. There is a wide range of sources available here and combined I believe this passes GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. There does not appear to be any significant secondary coverage in reliable sources; a couple of refs are exclusively quotes from/interviews with the founder(s) and the rest are either passing mentions or not independent/promotional materials. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:NCORP requires at least two of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company to count towards establishing notability. And here the subject has multiple coverage in reliable sources. I have also attached source table below for more clear views. Slovenichibo (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok so let's analyse these sources properly...
 * BBC: Interview with a couple of cat-sitters. The company is barely mentioned and not actually relevant to this local fluff piece; it's really not coverage of the company at all.
 * Huffpost: A couple of paragraphs but it's nothing more than a description (nothing "in detail") and a couple of quotes from one of the owners. Neither significant nor secondary coverage and a borderline advert for their crowdfunding effort.
 * TheDrum: Passing mention in a list of winners. This is not significant coverage.
 * Der Tagesspiegel: A couple of paragraphs but nothing more than a brief description (nothing "in detail") and a quote from one of the owners. Neither significant nor secondary coverage.
 * t3n: Nothing more than a description (nothing "in detail") and a quote from one of the owners in relation to startups. Neither significant nor secondary coverage.
 * Sifted: Quotes from an interview with the founder in relation to startups (again, no detailed info on the company). Neither significant nor secondary coverage.
 * NatGeo: Total coverage is two sentences that provide nothing more than a very brief description (nothing "in detail"). Again, this is neither significant nor secondary coverage.
 * All in, there is nothing that comes close to passing NCORP or even GNG. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * These couple of paragraphs are making a story that is considered as in-depth coverage. HuffPost and Der Tagesspiegel both 2 are reliable-reputed websites that talks quite in detail about the brand and which is what required here to pass the notability bar. Slovenichibo (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * May I add the City AM article which, while containing an interview, is heavily edited with additional information. I believe it is both reliable and significant coverage. NemesisAT (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment While not really suitable for inclusion in the article, Surry Comet have ran a story focusing on a negative experience using Cat In A Flat. NemesisAT (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Per NemesisAT coverage is available in multiple reliable sources. Rickshaw Takahashi (talk) 05:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Per all above, significant coverage is available in reliable sources. Nytendoz (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing WP:GNG, WP:NCORP, among other guidelines. Wikipedia is NOT a platform for promotion, and corporations must have much more notability than a few mentions in some magazines and newspapers to qualify for an article. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Nestlé Purina PetCare, as that partnership seems to be the most notable aspect of their existence. BD2412  T 01:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Nestlé Purina PetCare per above. Hypogaearoots (talk) 07:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC) *
 * Comment As this will likely close soon I don't have time to go too in-depth but promotional issues has been addressed. The subject is a well known company in UK and like other dog sitter brands this cat sitting brand is also expanding. Overall, Company has received indepth coverage in many reliable sources like HuffPost and Der Tagesspiegel (Have won many Awards like BIMA Award and UNLEASHED Accelerator Lab Programme), got coverage in many other major well-known networks like BBC which is more than enough to qualify for notability. Slovenichibo (talk) 07:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Changing to keep Per Slovenichibo and all above passes GNG and NCORP as has received coverage in major news networks. Hypogaearoots (talk) 07:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.