Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Vets (company) (2nd nomination)

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 delete‎. Closing early. But to correct the nominator, I don't see that any editor who worked on this article is blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Vets (company)

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability. The sources are just either announcements (e.g. on securing funding) or republishing of their press releases/self-bio. Same for the content of the article,. Creator is indeffed for COI promotional creation. North8000 (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Was originally soft-deleted after being nominated for failure to pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Coverage is limited to news about product launches and market openings that are excluded from consideration as trivial under WP:ORGTRIV. Even after refund, there are not multiple examples of significant, secondary, independent coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nomandbou, who created the account only for the article's restoration at RfU, assured us with sure! when asked if he has at least two deep or significant sources as per the previous AfD. Jay 💬 07:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the sources in the refunded article, and they do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. See source analysis/comments below:
- Calcalist, TechCrunch, VC News Daily, NoCamels, Calcalist (in Hebrew), FinsMes, PYMNTS, and Globes: WP:PRESSRELEASE-based (WP:CHURNALISM) routine coverage of a capital raise and thus ineligible under WP:ORGTRIV.
- New year's eve fireworks: More churnalism based on press releases.
- The Times doesn't even reference this company, it's an editorial generically talking about "the vets" in Britain as an industry sector.
- KPTV is sponsored content (read down to the bottom) and thus not independent.
- DVM 360, Community Impact, Pet Age, and ABC6: coverage of new location openings and thus ineligible under WP:ORGTRIV.
- Spectrum News 1, Tampa Beacon, WFTS Tampa Bay: local news and thus of questionable value for WP:NCORP per WP:AUD.
-- Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the source analysis above, an abuse of the refund procedure, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Traumnovelle (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2024 (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.