Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beverly Hills Vet

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. There is definitely not a consensus to delete, but this does not mean a merger cannot be considered if there's more to say about the show and Warren together. Star Mississippi 02:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Hills Vet

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

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

Prod and redirect to

WP:PROVEIT. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one, two, three. Nfitz (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First one is a good find. I think you linked the wrong thing in the third one, as that's sources about Tuckerville. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I screwed up the third link - it was a non-existent page ... perhaps it showed you a Tuckerville article because that was what you'd previous been looking at. Correct link is https://www.proquest.com/docview/438886427 Nfitz (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Additionally, [1].
matt91486 (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
- There's also a Hartford Courant article I can see on google that redirects just to their main page, if someone has access to it through another means. It's called "A SURREAL `BEVERLY HILLS VET'".
  matt91486 (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

This one's tricky to me because most of the sources being found tend to refer to Katrina Warren herself as the "Beverly Hills Vet" and mention the show in passing or not at all. The Variety source was a good find. Ten Pound Hammer • ⁽What did I screw up now?) 17:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consider whether the limited sources are enough to establish notability for the TV series rather than the show's host.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can see why this was nominated. A stub with few citations and few sources overall. However I feel the citations found above do lean toward a tenable view there is significant coverage. The internet was not what it is now in 2003, and so to be able to find internet articles in Variety for a show nearly 20 years old is good enough for me. Ought to stay.
talk) 01:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to the article about Warren herself. I don't think the tv show is notable enough by itself. Oaktree b (talk) 03:04, 10 May 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.