Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petfinder.org


 * 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. Tone 14:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Petfinder.org

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete. Non-notable website. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Although this appears to be a corporately funded website, it does provide the service free to adopters and as such is actually a service rather than a commercial enterprise. Actually neutral on what to do with it, so just a comment for now. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 02:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
 * Keep. Put the website into Google News. There's a lot of hits for this, and not just alerts to rescuing specific animals. Article needs work, but does not meet the criteria set forth for deletion. Miyagawa   (talk)  08:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The article on the type of business they do is apparently a stretch for notability and up for AFD. I don't see how a specific company engaged in said business is particularly notable. Also can't fit it into WP:CORP, i.e. significant independent coverage --Savonneux (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Would not qualify under WP:CORP, but would under Notability (web). According to the criteria there, if the website has won an award then it qualifies for notability. It won the People's Voice award at the 13th Webby Awards . Miyagawa   (talk)  10:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Good enough for me.--Savonneux (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Strong Keep Minor sourcing problems, perhaps, but a generally excellent article about an organization meriting WP coverage. Will be helpful to WP users, not selling anything. Carrite (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly notable and important. Better sources and a more neutral tone would be helpful. BTW what does it matter that an organization is for profit or not? What are we, hippies? Steve Dufour (talk) 03:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per above.-- &#x03C6; OnePt618Talk &#x03C6;  05:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article may not be perfect, but that doesn't make it worthy of deletion. The topic is worthy of Wikipedia coverage and is well documented by RS. Smoking Newton   (MESSAGE ME)  15:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It only needs a bit of a clean-up, not a deletion. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 17:35, 9 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.