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The result was nomination withdrawn and no remaining delete !votes. (NAC) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Show Cats: The Standard of Perfection[edit]

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

~~This little documentary isn't notable, as can be seen in the searches above.~~ Deprodded by the page's creator. Abductive (reasoning) 01:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ IMDB isn't a reliable source, and doesn't support any of the material anyway. I'm not at all certain that the PBS link is even referring to the same thing.—Kww(talk) 03:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goes to show the importance of getting the title right when an article is created.—Kww(talk) 16:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Keep ~~Every documentary is not notable. Unless there are sources telling something about the show there shouldn't be an article here.~~ Sources have been added with bring the article up to WP's standards. I personally think the standards should be higher for TV shows, but that's another issue. (I will bring up some issues on the article's talk page.)Steve Dufour (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to add an info box, but I can't be the only one trying to fix the Show Cats page (which I created). Try to find some good links, please. StarLegacy (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As part of WP:BEFORE, I attempted to find secondary sources for this topic, but failed. Abductive (reasoning) 22:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respects... how could you miss the full-length review in The New York Times? [1] I think my google-foo is on high today. I'll give it some major expansion and sourcing before coming back. Best. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With great respects to the nominator, the Find sources set up by the AFd template is sometimes useless. I did my own search using "Mark Lewis" +"Show Cats" as my parameters and came up with multiple reviews and critical commentary about this documentary. What was sent to AFD as this mediocre stub, has now become THIS decently encyclopedic and well-sourced Start-Class article that is now worthy of inclusion within these pages. It might not have before... but it now passes WP:NF. And yes... I even surprised myself with this one. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the real title of the PBS documentary is The Standard of Perfection: Show Cats. Abductive (reasoning) 06:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. And the title does not include the word "The". I do not know how I missed something so obvious (embarrassed chagrin). I have just moved it to the proper title... Standard of Perfection: Show Cats.[2] Many thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Further whoops... I do see that the DVD cover includes the word "The" in the title, but that may be just for the DVD cover, as not all of the sources use a "The"... many referring to it, just as does IMBD, simply as Standard of Perfection: Show Cats. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. I'm amiable. So which do you think it should be? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Never mind. I'd far rather trust The New York Times than trust IMDB. You were right.... I'll make the move. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Since others have already notvoted delete, by withdrawing my nomination I may not bring this AfD to a quick end, but it is clear that the article should not be deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 06:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... I have only in the last few minutes left messages at their talk pages informing them of the changes to the article. Hopefully, they might revisit this discussion and offer additional input... or if not, the closer might take into account that it has gone through significant improvements since nomination and make note of your own comment here. Thanks much. I'm always happy to help out. - Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with MichaelQSchmidt, it is now a decent Start-class article with reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 10:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Preferred vote: Change WP policy so that daily TV reviews are not considered "reliable sources" (to establish notability) and discourage articles on individual TV shows. Failing that:Keep since it meets current policies. (If interested please discuss on article's talk page. Thanks.) Steve Dufour (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For individual episodes of series, I 100% agree with you, and even tried to propose "describes a single episode of a television series" as a CSD category. This, however, was a standalone documentary, and this review went beyond the standard review blurb.—Kww(talk) 14:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per topic meeting notability. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:47, 1 October 2010 (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.