Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walker County Humane Society

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. Tone 16:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Walker County Humane Society

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

fails WP:ORG . seems unknown outside Walker County. could find hardly anything on it [1]. LibStar (talk) 07:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. News stories like this one make it clear that Walker County Humane Society is distrusted by many people. This search (which is not restricted to reliable sources) brings up several petitions and blog pages complaining about the society. -- Eastmain (talk) 07:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of local interest only. Abductive (reasoning) 08:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Abductive, local interest != encyclopedic. JBsupreme (talk) 10:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS The title is a great disguise for something that would have been nominated immediately had it been called "2009 Alabama dog euthanizing incident". The news story cited is actually what the article is all about. The dog pound in Jasper, Alabama is not, in and of itself, notable. Mandsford (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As not notable per se. A single event does not make it notable any more than it would make an individual notable. Collect (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not just a single event, but a pattern of inadequacy which has generated notable and verifiable distrust. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this were a happy, adequately-funded, well-run shelter, it might well be of local interest only. But I think its problems and the controversies make it of interest to a wider audience. -- Eastmain (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should try to make the ASPCA, or the HSUS, or the state attorney general, or the county's state attorney, or other offices aware of the problems that you see with your local humane society. Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for getting nationwide attention. Something has to have attracted nationwide, and continued attention, in order to be keep its own separate article. Mandsford (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had tagged this article for speedy deletion, because of the no sources for this article subject. warrior 4321 05:16, 14 November 2009 (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.