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. Nothing in this closure acts to prevent anyone taking normal editorial actions with respect to the page, including but not limiting to merging.
Stifle (
talk) 11:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Keep Per Slovenichibo and Eastmain there are good reliable sources present to qualify for GNG. Although, page can be improved further to fix other issues.
Jaysonsands (
talk) 08:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep, articles in BBC News and Huffington Post establish notability.
NemesisAT (
talk) 22:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete , possibly speedy delete as G11, advertising. the purported references are human(or should I say cat) interest publicity, no matter where published--and the Huffington Post is worthless for notability . They're based entiely on uncfitical interviews with the founder, and that's not a RS. DGG (
talk ) 01:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep Passes notability bar. Although agree with above, article had some issues which I have fixed through cleanup and also added some more reliable sources to support notability.
Frigidpolarbear (
talk) 13:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)reply
The sentences + refs to more newspaper articles that you added are pure advertisement for this business, but they do not increase notability of this page. --
BhagyaMani (
talk) 05:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)reply
As per I can see winning the BIMA Award and some suporting refs like NatGeo, and 2 german refs were added by Frigidpolarbear which doesn't seem promotional and were some improvements to the page.
Slovenichibo (
talk) 09:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Refs ONLY to newspapers do NOT make an entry to Wikipedia notable, the more so as none of these newspapers demonstrate that this business model has a significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education, see
WP:ORGSIG + primary criteria for notability there. --
BhagyaMani (
talk) 09:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Where in
WP:GNG does it say newspapers are insufficient to establish notability? We have a source from BBC News, a national broadcaster.
NemesisAT (
talk) 09:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Again, see WP:ORGSIG + primary criteria for notability there. Impeeriumalo is right when stating that this page fails GNG criteria. --
BhagyaMani (
talk) 11:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)reply
The BBC News source alone demonstrates the positive impacts the website has had for catsitters. There is a wide range of sources available here and combined I believe this passes GNG.
NemesisAT (
talk) 17:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. Fails
WP:NCORP. There does not appear to be any significant secondary coverage in reliable sources; a couple of refs are exclusively quotes from/interviews with the founder(s) and the rest are either passing mentions or not independent/promotional materials. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment WP:NCORP requires at least two of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company to count towards establishing notability. And here the subject has multiple coverage in reliable sources. I have also attached source table below for more clear views.
Slovenichibo (
talk) 14:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)reply
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Ok so let's analyse these sources properly...
BBC: Interview with a couple of cat-sitters. The company is barely mentioned and not actually relevant to this local fluff piece; it's really not coverage of the company at all.
Huffpost: A couple of paragraphs but it's nothing more than a description (nothing "in detail") and a couple of quotes from one of the owners. Neither significant nor secondary coverage and a borderline advert for their crowdfunding effort.
TheDrum: Passing mention in a list of winners. This is not significant coverage.
Der Tagesspiegel: A couple of paragraphs but nothing more than a brief description (nothing "in detail") and a quote from one of the owners. Neither significant nor secondary coverage.
t3n: Nothing more than a description (nothing "in detail") and a quote from one of the owners in relation to startups. Neither significant nor secondary coverage.
Sifted: Quotes from an interview with the founder in relation to startups (again, no detailed info on the company). Neither significant nor secondary coverage.
NatGeo: Total coverage is two sentences that provide nothing more than a very brief description (nothing "in detail"). Again, this is neither significant nor secondary coverage.
These couple of paragraphs are making a story that is considered as in-depth coverage.
HuffPost and
Der Tagesspiegel both 2 are reliable-reputed websites that talks quite in detail about the brand and which is what required here to pass the notability bar.
Slovenichibo (
talk) 17:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)reply
May I add the
City AM article which, while containing an interview, is heavily edited with additional information. I believe it is both reliable and significant coverage.
NemesisAT (
talk) 17:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment While not really suitable for inclusion in the article,
Surry Comet have ran a story focusing on a negative experience using Cat In A Flat.
NemesisAT (
talk) 18:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep Per all above, significant coverage is available in reliable sources.
Nytendoz (
talk) 17:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete for failing WP:GNG, WP:NCORP, among other guidelines. Wikipedia is NOT a platform for promotion, and corporations must have much more notability than a few mentions in some magazines and newspapers to qualify for an article. --
SilverTiger12 (
talk) 22:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Nestlé Purina PetCare, as that partnership seems to be the most notable aspect of their existence.
BD2412T 01:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment As this will likely close soon I don't have time to go too in-depth but promotional issues has been addressed. The subject is a well known company in UK and like other dog sitter brands this cat sitting brand is also expanding. Overall, Company has received indepth coverage in many reliable sources like
HuffPost and
Der Tagesspiegel (Have won many Awards like
BIMA Award and
UNLEASHED Accelerator Lab Programme), got coverage in many other major well-known networks like
BBC which is more than enough to qualify for notability.
Slovenichibo (
talk) 07:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Changing to keep Per Slovenichibo and all above passes GNG and NCORP as has received coverage in major news networks.
Hypogaearoots (
talk) 07:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)reply
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.