Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HelpmefindMYPET


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

HelpmefindMYPET

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete. Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: There appear to be independent sources, i.e. this news article and this Reader's Digest write up. They're marginal, for sure, but I think that they're enough to satisfy the GNG. Buddy431 (talk) 01:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Articles on companies need more than independent sources. See WP:CORP. The bar has to be set quite high for commercial organisations otherwise every Tom, Dick and Harry Company would have a WP page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * An article failing wp:CORP or other topic related guidelines can still be notable under the General Notability Guideline (extensive coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject). I believe that this organization meets that threshold, if only barely.  Would it be bad if every Tom, Dick, and Harry Company had a Wikipedia Page, provided they were sufficiently notable and well sourced? Buddy431 (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I would have hoped the WP:CORP is the determinant for notability of a company rather than WP:GNG. For former gives more detail than the latter. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't any subject be notable under the General Notability Guideline? In fact, at wp:N I read that A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject specific guidelines listed on the right.  I believe that this topic is notable because it meets the General Notability Guideline. Buddy431 (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep  The usual way we reconcile the GNG and WP:CORP is that the coverage be substantial and nonpromotional. The two articles cited here are borderline, but I think they just make it. A decision on something like this is not a bright line distinction,, but a matter of judgement, in which arll factors should be considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 04:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak keep - The sourcing is horrible... should be a lot better, but I've heard of this and despite the pathetic sourcing I think the underlying article's notable. If in 6 months this isn't sourced any better, I'd be all for deletion. Shadowjams (talk) 10:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets criteria for inclusion as established at WP:GNG. I've tagged it for rescue to help find better sourcing. Moorsmur (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets guidelines under WP:GNG. Miyagawa   (talk)  15:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG and per Buddy431--Would it be bad if every Tom, Dick, and Harry Company had a Wikipedia Page, provided they were sufficiently notable and well sourced? Indeed it would be a great achievement for the encyclopedia.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2010 (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.