Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pet recovery service


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Pet recovery service

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The prod was contested. The remover added references, but none of them show notability. I can't find significant coverage for this service. Joe Chill (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I had PRODded it. It is not a notable topic. How about Dog washing service, Dog walking service, Television repair service, Vehicle recovery service?? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think any of those would be a fine topic for an article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't you think that would be pushing the bounds of Wikipedia rather too far? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Quoting myself from below: Vehicle recovery, Dog walking, Dog_grooming--Savonneux (talk) 04:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment @ Joe Chill This article doesn't seem to cover a particular pet recovery service, just the concept of a pet recovery service. RadManCF &#x2622; open frequency 21:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by concept? This is an actual service that is done by certain companies. Joe Chill (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A related AfD is at Articles for deletion/HelpmefindMYPET. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep (and maybe rename) This is well documented concept. Any search brings up tons of hits. It's more like OCLC than any of the things you mentioned. It's like dogtags but with a computer network. Also there is a Vehicle recovery article, Dog walking :P --Savonneux (talk) 23:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Google hits don't show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They do when they are in books, news, etc:


 * ASPCA complete guide to dogs - whole directory of them in back of book - ISBN 9780811819046
 * Coping with Sorrow on the Loss of Your Pet - ISBN 9781598584530
 * Pampering Your Pooch - ISBN 9780470009222
 * http://www.togethertag.com/ - company operating such a service
 * http://www.akccar.org/ - non-profit registry
 * http://public.homeagain.com/ - company operating such a service
 * http://www.lostmydoggie.com/ - company operating such a service
 * http://www.24petwatch.com/ - company operating such a service
 * http://www.petassure.com/lost_pet_recovery_service - insurance company that operates a service
 * http://www.petlink.net/ - company that operates a service in multiple countries
 * http://triangle.dbusinessnews.com/shownews.php?newsid=183217&type_news=latest - news article on AKC CAR network
 * http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2004/Sep/1074369.htm - news article about service in canada
 * There are hundreds more.
 * First reference - directories are not significant coverage, Reference 2 - Can't verify, Reference 3 - Can't verify, 4-10 - Companies having the service doesn't make it notable per WP:N, Reference 11 - likely press release, and Reference 12 - press release. Joe Chill (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you cant verify there is a handy link to WorldCat on the Special:BookSources page. Does the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Associationn count?
 * I cant even read half the news articles, I picked two at random, here are some more:
 * I cant even read half the news articles, I picked two at random, here are some more:
 * I cant even read half the news articles, I picked two at random, here are some more:


 * Presentation from "Annual Western Veterinary Conference 2008"
 * News article from the Idaho Statesman (the newspaper has a page on this very encyclopedia =O )
 * From the Denver Daily News
 * From the Sacremento Bee
 * From the AMVA, which doesnt have the exact words "pet recovery service" but talks about one of the companies (American Kennel Club) I listed above.
 * All the links should work, and there are more that are paywall. LexisNexis is handy.--Savonneux (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also when you say directories are not significant coverage, is true for individual companies/people/things ever so much more than topics. I was only trying to point out that enough companies purport to offer a service that a directory is necessary would denote that significant business (as in trade) in such a service does in fact exist. --Savonneux (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also also (it's like PPS), I do think the article needs to be rewritten/possibly renamed, excellent place to start would be the 20 some odd sources I've found. It's not esoteric by a long shot though.--Savonneux (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that maybe the article can least be shown to have the minimum of notability. I'll leave it at AfD and see what others think. Joe Chill (talk) 03:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is well sourced. What is the problem with an article on a type of business? Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The nominee is concerned about the sources. I don't think WP is the place where type of business needs documenting. Occupations, businesses etc are fine but we should draw a line in the sand and not list the huge variety of business types. Wikipedia is not a career guidance service!! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's all decide what sort of articles should be included. AFD is policy application, not development. --Savonneux (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Sourcing is sufficient to provide notability. Miyagawa   (talk)  10:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The nominee listed it for AfD because of concerns about the references do not establish notability. Can you give rationale for your stance? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The article needs an expand tag, not a afd nomination. Miyagawa   (talk)  15:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  14:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - I deprodded the article with the explanation that it is an article about a service and not an organization. There are hundreds of sources to verify that it is a notable service, and this article is very appropriate for Wikipedia. Moorsmur (talk) 00:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as a notable type of business, supported by the sourcing.  DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Google News search, Google Books search, and even Google Scholar search has results for this. Its a real thing, and notable enough to be mentioned all over the place.   D r e a m Focus  10:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable service with ample sources to meet WP:GNG.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:58, 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.