Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pet Lovers Centre

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. The stubbing of the article looks to have already been done. Davewild (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pet Lovers Centre

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

Clearly part of a PR campaign. I tried to clean it u[p , but all that is left is a list of well-publicized charitable events, each one of which the press covered, just as they were meant to do. That they do PR does not mean that we should follow them. It originated with the well-known Moring277 sockfarm, but others have worked on it, so I don't feel altogether comfortable with using G5. But is another admin does, I have no objection. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Stub I was surprised to see a retailer with 85 locations up at AfD. Doing a bit of poking around, this article says it's one of the larger/older pet stores in Singapore. The original article could have been deleted as an advertorial, but now that the effort has already been made to stub it, I think it should be kept. CorporateM (Talk) 21:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stub per above. There is also some untoward publicity here. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:34, 10 May 2015 (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.