Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pocket pet


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Pocket pet

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article has no citations, and my attempts to add some only found a few sources which contradict both each other and the article. The topic seems to meet WP:NOTNEO, and point 6 of WP:DEL-REASON.

I suggest replacing with a redirect to Pet. —me_and 17:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete and redirect I second Meand's suggestion. content does not merit its own page but would merit a section in a larger article on pets if it had reliable and verifiable sources. Dusty |&#x1f4ac;|You can help! 17:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a recognised classification, for example see An Illustrated Guide to Veterinary Medical Terminology. Warden (talk) 08:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I can see enough content there for a definition (ie, something that really belongs on Wiktionary), but not enough for this to have a Wikipedia article in its own right. That source does make this considerably less clear-cut than I'd originally thought, however. —me_and 19:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The Google Books and Scholar searches linked by the nomination procedure find plenty more potential sources that can be used to expand this article. Those links are there to inform the discussion, not to be ignored. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Keep It now a recognised term. Google books have several entries, this is the first entry []. There is several dozen more. Google scholar has a few citations for the term. scope_creep (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * DeletePer WP:DICDEF. It is a dictionary definition: A pocket pet is a pet someone might keep in his pocket, like the big guy did in "Of mice and men." In fact, it seems almost obvious enough to not require saying. Edison (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Per various sources found, the topic exceeds a mere dictionary definition. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Meets Wikipedia's General notability guideline. Source examples:, , , , , , , , , . Northamerica1000(talk) 02:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * keep per addition of sources. I love how everyone's digging them up, but no one can ever be arsed to add them to the damn article. Good thing I did that for you, hmm? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You could try to be a little more civil and a little less sarcastic. AfD is NOT a forum to force sources to be added, rather it is a place to discuss the exclusion of an article from Wikipedia. If an article is notable yet is not sourced guess what it is still notable! Mike (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable based on the Google Book search above. Mike (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2013 (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.