Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PetSmart Charities


 * 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. This debate has been open for over a month now and it's time to close it. The one redirect !vote can be discussed on the talk page of the article but there isn't a consensus for this to be deleted at this time. A large portion of the discussion is on how to improve the article which can also be taken to the talk page. Since being nominated the page has been significantly improved if you'd rather have an admin close this than a non-admin, please let me know and I'll revert myself here - but this really has come to a stopping point. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 14:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

PetSmart Charities

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is not independently notable; it is already covered within the main article, and the net effect is promotional for the company  DGG ( talk ) 08:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - I am an instructor for a course in the education program and this article was created by one of my students . It's easy for me to assume good faith because I know the author and context in which it was written. More importantly, I reviewed this topic before the article was written and I felt, and still feel, that the subject is clearly notable under WP:ORG. I did a search on LexisNexis Academic and found more than 300 hits for "PetSmart Charities" in major US Newspapers and nearly all of these articles are profiles of the organization or descriptions of their charity work. In a quick pass right now, I just added references and profiles published in USA Today (twice), The Chronicle of Philanthropy, The Oklahoman, the Las Cruces Sun-News, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the St. Petersburg Times. I could gets many dozens more. The subject is clearly notable. This article still has deficiencies, but they can be fixed. — m a k o  ๛  06:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a single one of the sources seem RS for notability. I am not convinced any of these 100s of articles are more than mentions of local events, or disguised press releases. Of the ones you now have, I don't think a  single one of the ones I can seem is acceptable for showing notability, tho they may be RS for showing what the organization does.  (I  changed as many of the Lexis links   for the references  to free links that do not depend on access to Lexis--using a paid link when not necessary is not good practice) (1) The Las Cruces Sun-Newws article is primarily about a local group, and mentions that it is sponsored by PetSmart (2) is almost entirely about the parent company, only mentioning the charity in 1 out of 10 paragraphs (3), (4), (5), and (6) are from their own site   (7), the USA Today article mentions PetSmart in one short paragraph of a general article that lists multiple organizations. (8) :he chronicle of philanthropy article, which I cannot see, appears from the title to be a mere listing of multiple charities.  (9) is their own site, (10)is to their site, but its a dead link (11) was   written by their communications manager (12) I cannot see but from the title it appears to be about multiple grants  (13) and (14) are from their own site (15), the second of the USA tToday articles, mentions PetSmart in one paragraph of a long article.  This leaves us with no reliable substantial sources at all.
 * Every substantial corporation (in the US at least) has an affiliate that does charitable contributions.  The  fundamental business purpose of such groups  is to get publicity, or sometimes, to promote the owner's personal values.  Every such write up is in effect a press release.  Should we therefore write two articles for each of the enterprises, one for the frankly commercial side and one for the community relations side?
 * One of the roles of a workshop organizer is to pick topics that are certain to stay in Wikipedia and cannot reasonably be challenged. I gave a neutral deletion rationale, carefully not saying it was written with a promotional intent.  DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, corporations in the US have charitable giving departments, but in this case PetSmart Charities is a completely separate organization. The programs that the org facilitates and funds have no connection back to PetSmart, and frankly they are two entities that have very different goals.  I also added a couple of additional sources to the article.-- pnwkev 08:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pnwkev (talk • contribs)
 * the additional sources would seem mere mentions also.One page in a book, and an article about a general method.  DGG ( talk ) 09:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * By your standards, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals page should be deleted as well. They're both animal welfare organizations and they both provide similar services to the community.  The only difference I see here, is that PetSmart is in the name of one charity, which apparently means it should be immediately deleted or merged into the PetSmart article.  The problem is that it's a completely separate organization which is why the article was created.  People assume they are one in the same, when in fact they are not.  Furthermore, there are now other articles that have linked to this article because linking to the PetSmart page did not provide sufficient information. pnwkev 03:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pnwkev (talk • contribs)
 * Unlike many other charitable arms of large companies, customers at PetsMart are systematically asked to donate to PetSmart Charities when they buy things at the store. Some of them will look for a neutral writeup of the organization to help make their decision. I strongly believe that we would should try provide one. A paragraph or two, several times, in publications like USA Today, plus many descriptions of their charitable work in local newspapers, seems like strong enough evidence of notability to me. Clearly, the links their website establish facts about the organization and don't establish notability. I think the other sources do. — m a k o ๛  15:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all sure how asking customers at the checkout becomes an argument for notability. I get asked to donate at checkouts fairly frequently. And a paragraph or two isn't enough evidence of notability -- it actually depends on what that paragraph or two says. A mere recounting of the fact that the charity exists doesn't establish any kind of significance. Not to mention that the links to their website are not considered reliable sources. I looked at the sources I could get to, but really don't see any notability compared to the thousands of charities out there. I'm sure it's a fine charity, but I say Delete . See below: getting closer to keep, although needs a few more good sources. LaMona (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that it's among the 400 largest charities in the US makes it more notable than the "thousands of other charities." The organization is large and very active. "Those paragraphs" describe the charity's work and funding programs because that work and funding programs are viewed, by the authors articles in newspapers that include USA Today (repeatedly!) as noteworthy. If 300 descriptions of their work in major US newspapers and being among the top 400 largest philanthropic organizations doesn't qualify for notability, what does? — m a k o  ๛  04:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you give more info about those 300 descriptions in major US newspapers? In a search (using EBSCOHost) today I found 3 articles about the charity, none of which are in major newspapers (although the search also returns many results that only have the term "PetSmart" because that is how the search in that database works). I also got zero in a search in a database of newspapers. I don't have access to Lexis-Nexis so I cannot see what the search looks like there. The articles that I found are actually superior in notability to the ones in the WP article, so I will try to add them. For example ones from the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 11/15/2006, Vol. 229 Issue 10, p1558-1558. Link #7 mentions the charity in two sentences in a fairly long text. The links to the PetSmart site should be dropped or greatly limited in number. I think the article can be improved, and will see what I can do, but in its current state it is not showing evidence of notability. LaMona (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for helping improve the article and for finding some better references!  I raised the fact that there are hundreds or articles in Lexis Nexis to make a point about breadth of coverage. According to WP:ORG, we only need be concerned with finding several good ones. I haven't looked at them all but I think that its safe to assume that other references in newspapers from Lexis Nexis Academic are generally going to be similar to the ones I already included or will be less convincing. I selected a sample from ones in papers I knew were reliable and from a diversity of papers and journalists. A lot of them seem to be animal welfare beat writing in mid-sized city newspapers. Many will be passing references to the organization and the projects its funded. As you might also imagine, many are repeated mentions by the same newspapers and by the same journalists. For example, all five USA Today articles are written by the same columnist.  — m a k o  ๛  03:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * m a k o, since you have better article access than I do, the article needs some third-party sources to replace at least some of the cites to the organization's own pages. One or two articles with information about the charity's different programs would be great. Also, I'm not sure what the general convention is for linking, but if you can find links that do not lead to a paywall that would also help those of us who don't have access. (I once worked at a U with great access - after leaving I found out how hard it is for non-U civilians to do research!) LaMona (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If it were an independent organization I would agree with you. But since it is not (despite the usual legal details of corporate structure), it can be and is covered on the main page. I don;t even think a redirect from the name is needed, as anyone looking for it would search under PetSmart. From WP:N, even meeting the notability criteria doesn't mean there should be a separate article if best covered in a more general page. We routinely use this to avoid making separate articles on branches of a company, whether geographic or functional.  DGG ( talk ) 07:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I added a section on major donations -- which is much more notable than the previous sections on adoption centers, and which are cited from veterinary journals. The article still needs cleanup, removing many of the links to the PS site and finding better sources for the adoption activities. I didn't format the citations (was in a bit of a hurry) but will try to get to that. With a little more work, this article could become a keeper. LaMona (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

 <hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (say)  @ 15:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Redirect to PetSmart. The only coverage I could find in a search was mentions, along the lines of "PetSmart charities funded this", "PetSmart Charities commissioned the survey", etc. Not the kind of significant coverage required for WP:ORG. Disclaimer: There are several references in the article that look like they might be significant coverage from national sources, but they are all behind a LexisNexis paywall so I couldn't evaluate them. --MelanieN (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, here's the text of the St Petersburg newspaper article (sorry i lost the formatting in it):
 * "When checking out at PetSmart, there is an option to donate $1 toward pet rescue or adoption. Where does this money go? / Donations go to the general fund of PetSmart Charities Inc., a nonprofit foundation that was created in 1994 to provide grants to animal welfare programs. / The funds are then distributed to pet shelters, humane societies, emergency relief organizations and animal rescue groups, says Kim Noetzel, communication manager for the charity that is based in Phoenix. Some of the grants go to national organizations and some stay within the state where donations are made, she said. In its 14 years, the charity has given more than $70-million to animal welfare groups. This year it hopes to give out $23-million. PetSmart Charities is a 501(c)(3) public charity that reported income of $20,423,278 during the fiscal year ending Jan. 28, 2007, with 93 percent of that coming from contributions. From that, $13,430,730 was given to animal programs. Administration took $583,611 and professional fundraising another $1,420,255. / To see more about PetSmart Charities, go to www.guidestar.org. You'll have to register to get access, but it's free and once you're on you can get financial reports on any public charity."
 * Hope that is helpful. -- do ncr  am  02:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I found an online version of all but 3 (I think?) of the articles referenced in the article added those links to the article. — m a k o ๛  02:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. From a Pittsburg news article:  "Since 1994, PetSmart Charities, an independent 501(c3) nonprofit animal welfare organization is the largest financial supporter of animal welfare efforts in North America, having provided more than $134 million in grants and programs benefiting animal welfare organizations. Through its in-store pet adoption partnership with PetSmart Charities, the company has helped save the lives of more than 4.4 million pets."  That was within an investor-oriented article: "PETSMART HAS REASONABLE INTRINSIC VALUE", by Rudd, Lauren. Pittsburgh Post - Gazette [Pittsburgh, Pa] 19 June 2011: C.1.  It is a really major charity, the biggest of its type in U.S. or Canada or Mexico.  There is plenty of coverage about it.
 * Another article is "PETSMART CHARITIES INC. IS FOCUS OF THE SHANYN DUBAY TOURNAMENT": [South Broward Edition] by LOURDES RODRIGUEZ-FLORIDO Staff Writer. Sun Sentinel [Fort Lauderdale] 20 Aug 2000: 3. It is all about a charity golf tournament in honor of a young person who died, who was devoted to the charity;  the golf tournament proceeds go to Petsmart Charities, it is relevant.
 * There are lots--perhaps hundreds--of sources like the following in Oakland Tribune: "ARF receives grant / ARF has been awarded a two-year grant by PetSmart Charities to fund a spay and neuter program targeting homeless, free-roaming cats in Contra Costa County. / "This grant will enable ARF to drastically reduce birth rates and increase the number of friendly cats adopted from shelters," says Elena Bicker, executive director. "Our goal is to alter 1,600 free-roaming cats annually to stop pet overpopulation at the source. / "We would like to thank PetSmart Charities for this generous grant, and our partners for their support in making this project a great success." / PetSmart Charities, Inc. is a nonprofit animal welfare organization that saves the lives of homeless pets, separate from PetSmart, Inc. / And in other ARF news: Save the date for "Wine & Whiskers." / Join ARF in celebrating 10 years of saving the lives of rescued dogs and cats at Wine & Whiskers, an evening of specialty wines, hors d'oeuvres, live music and silent auction from 5 to 8 p.m. Saturday, Sept. 28, at Tony La Russa's Animal Rescue Foundation, 2890 Mitchell Drive in Walnut Creek. / Reservations are $80. Register online at www.arf.net or call 925-256-1ARF. Don't delay, as this event sells out quickly. ("Faith Barnidge: Good Neighbors are Volunteer Center of the East Bay, Locks of Love, ARF and Contra Costa Regional Medical Center", by Barnidge, Faith. Oakland Tribune [Oakland, Calif] 27 Aug 2013.
 * Anyhow, while i think it should simply be Kept, redirecting would obviously be superior to deletion. Simply keep. -- do  ncr  am  01:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Keep National non-profit with coverage. -- Green  C  20:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" /> P.S. This is much like Ronald McDonald House Charities, which gets a separate article or threee (+Ronald McDonald House Charities Canada and Ronald McDonald House New York). -- do ncr  am  00:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Within DGG's and MelanieN's comments above is reflected some cynicism, I think, about the likely purpose of the charitable nonprofit in complementing the commercial purpose of Petsmart the corporation.  I too am rubbed the wrong way a bit by the repetition in Petsmart Charities's statements that the nonprofit is completely separate;  of course it is part of Petsmart marketing and they must feel it is working out well, for it to be continued.  I don't want the Wikipedia articles to accept the "separateness" sycophantically.  However, we need to find some critical views published that say "separate is nonsense" and put that into the article;  that is a matter for editing.  We shouldn't impose our view by editorially by saying that the charity must be covered within the corporation article only because we personally believe it is not separate.  Do let's find & use some critical coverage.  Or at least point out the marketing advantage it provides.  But this is a major charity and i already expressed my view that it should be kept. -- do  ncr  am  00:38, 4 December 2014 (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.