Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pet psychic


 * 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 most of the delete comments were attacking the strength of the sources or their reliability. Sources for fringe theories that advocate the theories themselves will always run close to the edge, but there are some more mainstream if not exactly high-brow. Notability has been at least minimally established. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Pet psychic

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This borders to neologism in my opinion; the are no references, so everything is original research, and most of the current text is fluffy clouds at best. → Aza Toth 19:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * comment Throws up a lot of G-Hits - References being added is far from improbable. However I wonder if the article would be better off being stubbified (even more so!) and built up from the ground upwards. I'm tagging it with rescue with that in mind. Artw (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article definitely needs to be neutralized but this is a notable subset of the psychic industry. There's even this(!)  198.74.38.59 (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Come on Wikipedia I was logged in, why you gotta be like that. Poechalkdust (talk) 07:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Put to sleep. DS (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm presuming that's a delete... pretty terrible joke mind.  GARDEN  21:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Here are a few references,, , and (kudos to roux). Sheesh, people, the article looks more like a farce with all those  . Now, I'm not sure what part of "notability" from WP:GNG, you guys are missing:

Significant coverage: covered in several television programs, such as The Pet Pyschic.

Reliable, Sources, and Presumed: All mentioned in my statement above.

Independent of the Subject: I don't see any instances of "advertising" or "promotion" in there.

Cheers.  Im per a t § r (Talk) 21:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article subject is notable enough I believe. This is an actual profession that people practice, and has received a lot of coverage as of late. The article definitely needs some work though... -Pax85 (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, maybe redirect to The Pet Psychic, which is somewhat more notable. Pretty weak suggested references, and makes extraordinary claims like "When they realized that they could communicate telepathically, then came the discovery that they could also communicate with animals, even animals that have passed away". Alright, sure, the piss-poor writing isn't a reason to delete, but if we just have brief appearances on a couple talk shows as the only claim to notability, I don't see how we're supposed to improve the article, or sort out those referencing problems. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per ImperatorExercitus. This topic definitely meets the general notability requirements. Killiondude (talk) 07:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Lot of people out there believe in this sort of thing, and have created books, television shows, and a lot of internet post about it.  D r e a m Focus  11:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Your dog is talking to me ... it's coming clearer, yes, he say keep (and also that he's hungry). Certainly a notable subject whether it's real or not. That people make a living doing this is what's notable, IMHO. -- Banj e  b oi   18:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY - at least as of now, it is a notable, well-referenced article. Certainly not a neologism; the term has been around for decades. Bearian (talk) 17:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.  —Artw (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Just because there's a lot of words in the reference section, doesn't mean its notable. All I see are sources covering broader pseudo-scientific claims (which fail to offer the required "significant coverage"), and a lot of non neutral primary sources. Fails WP:NOTE.--Sloane (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2009 (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.