Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pets As Therapy


 * 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Pets As Therapy

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article about a UK charity which only has one non-primary source - a local news story about a non-notable award. Searching Google News only brings up local news stories and, while there's a good few of these, none of them establish significant coverage of the charity. "Pets as Therapy" throws up a number of results on Google Scholar but everything I have seen so far just uses the term in a generic (and not always consistent) way, without referring to the charity. WJ94 (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting to gain more insight from additional editors. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Joyous! | Talk 19:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Organizations. WJ94 (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 17:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Appears to fail the GNG per nom. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - has added additional sources since this nomination, which I thought I should quickly comment on:
 * 1 - A local news story, so not providing significant coverage according to WP:AUD. Also the article is mainly about the hospital and the dogs, with the charity receiving one sentence.
 * 2 - This is a guest post in the magazine Dogs Today. The post is written by Little Bramingham Farm, which is the care home where these therapy dogs are being used, so is not independent. And even then, the charity only receives on short paragraph of coverage, which is entirely a quotation from the owner of one of the dogs.
 * 3 - This is about Cariad Pet Therapy; "Pets as Therapy" does not appear in the article.
 * 4 - A local news story about someone winning a local award for long service. The article isn't about Pets as Therapy, which gets a very brief one-sentence mention.
 * 5 - This is a regional story about a man whose recovery was aided by therapy dogs. Pets as Therapy is not the focus of the article (it's not even clear if the dog which helped this man is connected to the charity) but receives a one-sentence mention.
 * 6 - A local news story about the charity's work with children's vaccinations. The charity is discussed in a little detail, but as a local source fails WP:AUD.
 * Overall, none of these provide the level of coverage required to pass GNG. WJ94 (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.