Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pet ownership among the homeless


 * 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. Nominator withdrew. (non-admin closure) 💵Money💵emoji💵 💸 11:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Pet ownership among the homeless

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Why do we need this we already have pages about Pet owner ship Dumyes (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Clueless nomination which does not provide a reason to delete and hasn't followed WP:BEFORE. Here's a book about the topic: My Dog Always Eats First. Andrew D. (talk) 08:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep With no prejudice towards the nominator. Some articles may seem totally stupid and pointless, but there are actually sources that exist for them and are able to support them as pages. 💵Money💵emoji💵 💸 11:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is a reliably sourced article on a recognised topic. As well as the sources in the article (surely sufficient), there's Rhoades 2015 Pet Ownership among Homeless Youth: Associations with Mental Health, Service Utilization and Housing Status which on its own makes clear this is a serious subject. For a recent article in a major newspaper, there's Dogs on the Streets: helping homeless pets and their owners in The Guardian on 16 Sept 2018. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:GNG a well sourced article (although needs more of a worldview), may have been appropriate to ask their question on article talkpage instead. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Ok i now see the page meets WP:GNG i thought it was unneeded. But i see that it should stay now.Dumyes (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Since nom has now withdrawn the nomination, this AfD can now be procedurally closed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:42, 26 October 2018 (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.