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. None of the those who argued for keeping the article were able to successfully challenge HighKing's source analysis. Many of the keep !votes were only appeals to subjective measures of importance while the case for deletion was rooted in WP:NCORP. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Petzone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Based on discussion with HighKing at Talk:Petzone... the entity fails at WP:NCORP and PR/advertisements-based articles are masquerading as news i.e., WP:ADMASQ. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion to generate a wider and unbiased consensus. - Hatchens (talk) 12:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:52, 31 January 2022 (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. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Speedy keep. First of all, as someone in the Middle East who knows a lot about which kinds of chain stores are notable and which ones are not -- this is the largest pet store in Kuwait with various stores in other countries as well, so there's no way that Petzone would fail WP:NCORP. It's equivalent to Petco and PetSmart in the US. With multiple features in the Gulf News, Arab Times, Kuwait Times, The National, and other top-tier newspapers in the Gulf, these are not definitely not press releases at all. Also they're notable enough to have made it onto the Arabic and Persian versions, which are both now quite tough on notability standards and anti-advertising policies. I would suggest taking a closer look at this before considering deletion. Hawawshibread (talk) 11:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawawshibread, Not enough good reasons. Could you justify your statements with relevant Wikipedia guidelines? -Hatchens (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep they don't seem notable in the Anglosphere, but visiting the references on Google or just doing a simple search of their nameshows they are notable in Arabic-speaking countries, with in-depth articles about them on major news sites (not just blogs). Not all Citations are paid as there is a winning award in their niche segment so isn't a reason to delete the page, as the article isn't defamatory - either ignore it and leave it to someone else or check the references and remove the irrelevant ones. They also have articles on Persian and Tagalog Wikipedia in addition to animal welfare support which seems to be important to their community. Humble84 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful if those arguing for keeping the article could point to some reliable sources discussing the topic. These sources need not be in English.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless better sources can be found. I looked at those currently cited and all appear to be not independent or not reliable, or don't provide significant coverage. The Arabic Wikipedia article was deleted, and the other languages only cite sources that are in the English article. A865 (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep here a reliable source in Arabic that shows they are notable with contributions for local comunity in a top-tier mainstream Al Qabas click to veiw plus they do have an award in their niche buisness which shows that they are known in their segment.Humble84 (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

double vote struck. Further evidence allowed, of course. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well, of course non of us like a page who created to be deleted after a big effort and that also frankly make my vote less weighted here in your discussion. My ponit of view that they have the following reilaible and independant souces:

1.click to veiw 2._ click to veiw 3._ click to veiw 4.click to veiw End of the day I respect all of your opinions and your decision whether to keep or delete it.Regards Darksheild (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Possibly all these three IDs are WP:SPA - Hawawshibread, Humble84 and Darksheild. A closer examination is required. -Hatchens (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm just not seeing sources presented that really satisfy WP:NCORP or WP:ORGDEPTH upon inspection currently. This is the only source that helps the case a bit that I've seen, but it comes across more as a press release.

While we don't have to follow what other language wikis do, the unsourced claims by other commenters that this is one of the largest pet stores or equivalent to PetSmart seems to fall if even the Arabic article was deleted. KoA (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I confess that I am animal lover and have a bias for all things pet related. The company has been mentioned by a reputable source - Gulf News ^[1]. However the article is more about the terrible event rather than a focus on the company. This is a list of what probably was a curated list by an author^[2]InfiNeuro (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:I see that they contribute to animal welfare in 3rd world countrires like Middle East plus support animals rights and community education in non profit way. I feel that wikipedia community should take a look to the importance of this topic rather than other factors. Last but not least I am not a sockpuppet for any user here!Humble84 (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Policy based non SPA votes would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply.

• I'm assuming all the sources are reliable (unless obviously not e.g. blogs, social media, etc) and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than that for establishing notability.
• As per WP:SIRS each reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant, there can be 100 references but for the purposes of establishing notability we only require a minumum of two that each meet the criteria
• WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
• "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.

Not a single reference either mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria as follows.

• This from Kuwait Business Review has no accredited author/journalist and is a "puff profile" containing sentences such as "sharpening their team's focus on achieving the company goals". It is basically an advertisement and reads like copy produced by, or in conjunction with, the company. There is no evidence of any "Independent Content" and there is also a lack of in-depth information on the company. Fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
• This from The Magazine Plus is a press release from IssueWire (a Press Release Distribution Network). Not "Independent Content". Fails ORGIND
• This from VetHub is based entirely on a company announcement which is acknowledged in the headline and has no "Independent Content". Fails ORGIND.
• This from PetQuip contains no in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH. The award is not significant and doesn't contribute to notability.
• This from Kuwait News Agency is a mere mention-in-passing with insignificant in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH.
• This from Gulf News is a list which includes a description provided by topic company itself, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
• This from the Kuwait Times has no attributed journalist and is a "puff profile" and an advertisement masquerading as news, fails ORGIND
• This from 248am is a blog post from community website, fails as a reliable source.
• This from Arab Times is a reprint of the same article from Kuwait News Agency above, fails for the same reasons as above
• This from TimeOut Dubai is a list of "pet-friently" places in Dubai which mentions the topic company. Fails CORPDEPTH
• This from Buffalo News is from Issuewire and is a Press Release, fails ORGIND
• This from Kuwait Times is the same article as this in Kuwait24hours and is a "puff profile", entirely promotional relying on information provided by the company and quotes from anonymous staff. Fails ORGIND.
• This from Kuwait Local is a mere mention-in-passing, fails CORPDEPTH.
• This from TimeOut Dubai is another list which mentions the topic company, fails CORPDEPTH
• This from National News Lifestyle is a mere mention, fails CORPDEPTH
• This from Bayut is a list which mentions (one of the stores of) the topic company, fails CORPDEPTH
• This from Gulf News describes how a kitten was treated at a veterinary clinic run by the topic company, fails CORPDEPTH
• This from What's On says that stray cats can be brought to the topic company's veterinary clinic at Sheikh Zayed Road from November 17 to 19. Fails CORPDEPTH
• This from Alqabas.com (which was mentioned above also) mentions the company in passing. Fails CORPDEPTH

In summary, not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'd like it if we covered more businesses in countries outside North America and Europe, but we do need reliable sources independent of the subject providing some in-depth coverage. The links provided are, well, HighKing summarizes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment we seem to have rather double-standards about businesses. I nominate an ice-cream outlet in New York for deletion because the only sources are passing mentions, interviews and churnalism, and I get a stiff reminder that WP has no policy on interviews, only an essay. Parallel situation with the largest pet-store chain in Kuwait, and suddenly we're a lot more careful about sources. It'd be nice were we consistent. Elemimele (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment seems from the last comment that you notability here is subjective topic and what you applied here you do not apply there! You cannot compare the covarge momentum for regional Kuwaiti company to North American ones and in this case you will not add buisnesses from outside. For the animal rights in 3rd world country you should seriously consider keeping it elsewise it is all up to you.Humble84 (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a WP:SOAPBOX. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unless there is more (better/more references) I don't see this as notable for a single page at this time. ContentEditman (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I agree with the keep voters here. Seems to be a big store in Kuwait based on the citations. kuwaittimes is a good one and from top Kuwait publication. This is also indepth. Plus I found THIS additional citation in Google news. Possibly there are also Arabic citations that none of us are finding, since it doesn't seem anyone here speaks Arabic. Zeddedm (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reasoning of "seems like a big store" doesn't appear in our guidelines so irrelevant. The KuwaitTimes piece is a puff profile which relies entirely on information provided by the company and quotes from an anonymous "store manager". It is also irrelevant that it is from "top Kuwait publication" once it is a reliable source - we need the content to meet certain criteria and this doesn't. The next one you say is "also indepth" but it has no attributable journalist (red flag for WP:RS) and is another puff profile fill of peacock terms and descriptions such as "From their humble beginnings" and "PetZone’s expertise in enhanced pet care provided customers with the best and most sought after international brands that are available in the market", etc. The additional citation found in Google News is marked as "Partner Content" and was produced by the company - impossible to miss - so fails ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with prejudice. This is a paid for PR piece sourced to PR pieces with no in depth coverage. Sources in Arabic are equally as lackluster (and Alaa, a native speaker has previously said as much.) These sources are largely blackhat SEO and the ones that aren't are blatant press releases and passing mentions. CUPIDICAE💕 19:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, this should be g4'd - it is word for word identical to the previous iteration - the only difference it's created by a new sock with new fake news sources. CUPIDICAE💕 19:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is the largest chain of pet stores in Middle East and will be in wikipedia sooner or later so better you guys accept it now than to accept it by force later.188.71.240.8 (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If by "force" you mean that there will be multiple high-quality, independent sources giving in-depth coverage about the topic, then I think the editors here will applaud that as wonderful! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I see the article is written with no marketing or promotion language plus this store is well known in GCC. Enogh sources and citations came in organic way also without promotion or paid intentions.188.70.15.244 (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. HighKing's source analysis is spot-on, and my searches could not identify any coverage that would meet the strictures of WP:NCORP. There is no indication that genuinely independent reliable sources have afforded significant coverage to this company. I hope the closer looks beyond the !vote count here: there are serious issues with the keep !votes, both with regard to strength of argument and with regard to possible SPAs/sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. (I note that two keep !voters have already been indeffed for sockpuppetry.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I check the citations and seems to me many are significant and organic. It is a store chain so we should not except super rich news about such topics in general. This store is quite popular and well known in GCC and thet really add a big improvemnt on pet care industry in middle east.188.71.218.177 (talk) 11:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I disgree with a vote about blackhat SEO. Many links are not paid and there is a wining award in addition to mainstream citations. My undsrstanding it passes WP:NCORP.185.247.91.12 (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A Kuwaiti petshop? Grief. Clear fail of WP:NCORP. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per HighKing's analysis above. Seems like there's so much of "IP-sockpuppetry" over here. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 12:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is about a non-notable pet shop! Clearly fail WP:NCORP.

Ahmed ^(talk) 14:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep I see that the voting here is in favour of deleting it although the entity is notable in their niche. For the vote who mention a Kuwaiti pet store? ... this store also have 3 big location in UAE and one of the first ones too!212.70.119.234 (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for failing WP:NCORP and on suspicion of being partly promotional. Certainly, an unwarranted number of anons have shown up to !vote without rationales. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2022 (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.