Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claymation Comedy of Horrors

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The result was withdrawn per WP:HEY. Primefac (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claymation Comedy of Horrors[edit]

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

Non-notable film. One GNews hit, barely anything on the regular search other than blogs, people selling things, and blogs selling things. Primefac (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The EW link is a professional review by Ken Tucker. Wikipedia:Notability (films) says that two professional reviews are an indication of notability, so I'd definitely like to see another. However, for a 1991 short, it's likely those reviews would have been in print, not on the internet. There are also quite a few mentions in Google Books -- I'll add some of the more promising references, including one I see in the first couple of hits about awards for work on the short.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reliable review sources found by Fabrictramp and the fact that it won a significant Emmy award. Definitely needs to be expanded though. editorEهեইдအ😎 03:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a genuine question, but does the animator winning an Emmy make the film notable? It sounds more like something that would bolster the animator's notability. Primefac (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually not sure, but I think I remember reading a page about the notability guidelines regarding film articles or another deletion discussion that the film winning a significant award indicates notability, much like how a song charting in several nations indicates significant notability. I could be wrong about that, though, since the guidelines can change.editorEهեইдအ😎

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

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

Keep per just enough coverage in reliable sources. IE: Exclaim! and numerous books showing this film has become part of our enduring historical record]. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:07, 25 July 2017 (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.