Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pet Sitters International

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Malinaccier (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pet Sitters International

edit

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

Pet Sitters International (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)

No evidence PSI meets N:ORG. A membership organization & trade association whose coverage is mostly non independent and definitely not in depth. Star Mississippi 02:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Costello, Jane (1999-09-02). "With Two Pet-Sitting Groups, Naturally Things Turn Catty". The Wall Street Journal. p. B1. ProQuest 398712141.

      The article notes: "After a series of catfights, Ms. Moran left NAPPS in 1993 and set up a rival organization, Pet Sitters International. The sponsor of Take Your Dog to Work Day, PSI now has 2,900 members, who pay $80 in annual dues. Through a correspondence school, PSI members can also apply to become an "Accredited Pet Sitting Technician" for $299. With further training, and another $179, there's the title "Advanced Pet Sitting Technician." For another $50, there's "Master Pet Sitting Professional." At PSI's conference in New Orleans next week, topics will include the "untapped market" for midday dog-walking and ways to avoid professional burnout. While PSI has accumulated the lion's share of pet sitters, NAPPS has recruited 1,200 members ..."

    2. Sturiale, Jeanne (2004-03-19). "King Woman Is a Leader in the Field of Pet-Sitting - Members Accredited to Visit Pets in Homes". Winston-Salem Journal. Archived from the original on 2024-08-12. Retrieved 2024-08-12.

      The article notes: "About 10 years ago, Patti Moran founded Pet Sitters International Inc. to encourage professionalism in the emerging field of in-home pet care. Since then, Pet Sitters International, a for-profit association in King, has grown to more than 6,000 members in nine countries, with members ranging from one-person shops to companies with 125 pet sitters on staff. ... After Moran sold her pet-sitting business in 1993, friends encouraged her to start an association. A year later, she formed Pet Sitters International. ... Moran wouldn't reveal profits, but, with annual member dues of $99, Pet Sitters International's sales exceed $500,000 a year."

    3. Daniel, Fran (2014-04-06). "A furry friend's safe haven. Globe pet-sitting association began in Triad" (pages 1 and 2). Winston-Salem Journal. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2024-08-12. Retrieved 2024-08-12 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Patti Moran's love for dogs. cats and other pets morphed from a petting-sitting business into an international pet-sitting association based in King. Founded in 1994, Pet Sitters International is an educational organization for professional pet sitters. The association has 7,000 members, of which 331 are based in 30 countries outside the United States, including Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan and Brazil. For the past 20 years, the association has focused on helping people start their own professional pet-sitting services by offering access to pet-sitter specific business and educational resources, as well as educating pet owners about the importance of choosing "quality pet-care providers.""

    4. Caldwell, Neill (2019-11-06). "King-based worldwide organization celebrates 25 years". The Stokes News. Archived from the original on 2024-08-12. Retrieved 2024-08-12.

      The article notes: "Pet Sitters International celebrated that 25th anniversary this past weekend during its annual World Educational Conference. Patti Moran is the founder and is considered a pioneer — not just for Pet Sitters International but for an entire industry that didn’t really exist until she envisioned it. The organization was started in Winston-Salem, but the Morans moved to King 22 years ago. ... In 1994, Moran founded Pet Sitters International (PSI). ... PSI began publishing the first magazine for professional pet sitters, now called Pet Sitter’s World. Moran and PSI also established Professional Pet Sitters Week, now a recognized, annual observance around the globe. The organization also promotes pet adoption, has an awards program, an online store and offers its members certifications and bonding. It is the world’s largest educational association for professional pet sitters and dog walkers."

    5. Duea, Angela Williams (2008). How To Open & Operate a Financially Successful Pet Sitting Business. Ocala, Florida: Atlantic Publishing. pp. 34, 223–224. ISBN 978-1-60138-229-0. Retrieved 2024-08-12 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes on page 34: "Pet Sitters International (PSI) offers pet sitters an accreditation program to sharpen their professional skills. An in-depth educational program teaches pet sitters about pet care, health and nutrition, business management, office procedures, and additional services. The top pet sitting professionals in the industry have worked together to develop this coursework. While you can gain this knowledge in other places, such as by reading this book, PSI offers accreditation for students completing this coursework. Your clients will know that by hiring an accredited sitter, they are assured of hiring a professional with in-depth knowledge and skills in caring for pets and a good knowledge of modern pet-care practices. To become accredited, the pet sitter has to learn and exhibit a working knowledge of taking care of many types of animals and running an efficient business."

      The book notes on pages 223–224: "Pet Sitters International is dedicated to educating professional pet sitters and promoting, supporting, and recognizing excellence in pet sitting. This professional association offers pet sitters an accreditation program to sharpen their professional skills. An in-depth educational program teaches business management, office procedures, and additional services. The top pet-sitting professionals in the industry have worked together to develop this coursework."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Pet Sitters International to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As always, thanks for the sources @Cunard, 5 was new to me but I'm not sure 1-4 are suitably independent as the blurbs are lifted from versions of their site which makes me think they're re-prints of press releases and other communications from Moran. Maybe the depth will end up being there given their history but I"ve not yet found it. Will keep looking too. Star Mississippi 12:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's unclear to me how these sources are lifted from versions of their website or are reprints of press releases. Reliable sources have covered the company's history, products, and initiatives like Take Your Dog to Work Day. This is the coverage I'd expect notable companies to receive. Some of this information is also covered on the company's website but I don't see any close paraphrasing or indication that the sources solely relied on what the company said. I think there's enough independent coverage from national publications like The Wall Street Journal and Atlantic Publishing to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. Cunard (talk) 08:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further review of the sourcing presented by Cunard.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep based on the first two sources surfaced by @Cunard above. The Winston Salem Journal article is independent and significant coverage, and the WSJ article is not particularly long but is in-depth and independent. Both meet SIGCOV. I can't access #3 but it looks like it could go either way. 4 and 5 seem quite PR/publicity driven (not saying #5 is not independent, but the information seems regurgitated). Oblivy (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "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. Cunard has provided links to sources above but that these fail the criteria as follows:
  • The WSJ article contains approx 7 sentences containing information about the company which mostly simple recites the fees, courses and accreditation, all repeated from the website. Fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. The rest of the article is about the founder falling out with a rival organisation and an upcoming conference.
  • This first article in the W-S Journal is a puff profile, based entirely on an interview with the founder, Moran. There is no "Independent Content" as required by ORGIND. Similarly the second W-S Journal article is also based entirely on an interview with the founder and has no "Independent Content" as per ORGIND.
  • This from Stoke News is based on an announcement of 25 years in business and an interview with the founder. It repeats the same information as in the other articles, about how she was let go from a previous job and set up the company and wrote a book. It regurgitates the same messaging as in the other article and has no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.
  • The book "How To Open & Operate a Financially Successful Pet Sitting Business" copies the bullet points listed on pages 34, 35 and 36 from the company as acknowledged by the copyright notice. It is also included in the appendix which lists lots of organisations but the open sentence describing the company is copied in parts from the website and the rest simply regurgitates the same descriptions we've seen in the other articles. There is no "Independent Content" or any content which cannot be found on archived copies of the website, fails ORGIND
I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 18:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I cannot see 212 words in the WSJ journal that are about the organization tbh. Also, it isn't only quotation or interviews or other types of directly quoted wording which falls foul of ORGIND, but also information which clearly originates from the organization or their officers. It is a fact that the WSJ spoke with or interviewed the founder for the article as they include a direct quote about her quitting NAPPS saying "It was hard to get anything done". That the article might paraphrase or otherwise not directly quote exactly what was said does not make the *content* independent - clearly there is no dispute that the publisher (WSJ) and PSI are corporately independent. The information about the accreditation and the number of members is on the website - or more likely with information provided during the interview. Also remember, that once you discard the information that fails ORGIND, the remaining content must be SIGCOV significant and CORPDEPTH in-depth - none of the content is either significant or in-depth about the organization. HighKing++ 14:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is more off-base to blindly assume that WSJ "coverage" automatically contains "Independent Content". Can you point to those parts of each article which you consider as "Independent Content" that meets ORGIND? Cunard's point is based on the assumption that anything that isn't contained in quotes must therefore be independent content, but "dependent coverage" includes content which is "substantially based" on PR, announcements, quotes, interviews, etc. Rewording the information does not make the content independent. HighKing++ 14:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't even know how to respond to this. The WSJ is on the list of perennial sources at RSN, and there's no question about the subject of this article being somehow tied to an area where WSJ would have a conflict, such as News Corp. The WSJ is, along with the Financial Times and the New York Times, one of the most consistently reliable newspapers in the English-speaking world, and it has real reporting standards that go beyond repackaging press releases. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:27, 27 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pet_Sitters_International&oldid=1253191279"