 | This article was nominated for deletion on 6 November 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dog daycare article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
_part_2.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
First comments
editThe page simply explains what a Dog Daycare is and what involves bringing your dog to one, I don't understand what is the difference between my page and the one for kennel wiki kennel
The issue is that most of the people do not know what a Dog Daycare is and they think it's just a kennel, and that's also because wiki keeps deleting the Daycare page.
There is no advertising on the page, it doesn't promote a service instead of another, so I see it just bigot CENSORSHIP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kd rome (talk • contribs) 19:50, 6 September 2009
- Phrases like "its popularity is constantly rising", "dog owners found their self looking for a solution" and several others sound like they come from a brochure, not an encyclopedia article. Further down we have "At Doggy Daycare the dogs receive constant human companionship", "This Dog Daycare can be a 100% Cage Free or Partially Cage Free". Now, that sounds awfully specific for a supposedly general article. Favonian (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have declined the speedy since I think it is probably a legitimate topic, and it did not seem irredeemably spammy. I have removed a bunch of promotional language, however. Please expand and source the article asap using reliable sources such as those you can find here [1][2] and here [3]--Slp1 (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and Kd rome, please do not make accusations such as you do above. This is very much contrary to our policies of assume good faith.--Slp1 (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've cleaned up the article, hopefully this makes it seem less like an advertisement. If you're wondering, I found this article in Category:Articles with a promotional tone. Thanks. Netalarmtalk 04:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and Kd rome, please do not make accusations such as you do above. This is very much contrary to our policies of assume good faith.--Slp1 (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have declined the speedy since I think it is probably a legitimate topic, and it did not seem irredeemably spammy. I have removed a bunch of promotional language, however. Please expand and source the article asap using reliable sources such as those you can find here [1][2] and here [3]--Slp1 (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Removed a link
editHello, fellow editors … I removed the external link to the subject's entry on About.com … no way can it be considered a reliable source for anything except blatant, weapons-grade vanispamcruftisement. :-) Happy Editing! — 138.88.43.201 (talk · contribs) 04:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)