Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joy and Tom Studios

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. Shimeru 06:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joy and Tom Studios

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

129 hits on Bing. —fetch ·comms 23:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears to be accurate and unbiased with reputable, verifiable sources. I subscribe to ToyFare Magazine as well as Wizard and have seen their work and articles about the company appear in the publications many times. Their work for Robot Chicken on Cartoon Network also adds to the company's notability. Through the show, the company's sculpted works appear on cable TV several times a week. StatueCollector (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)StatueCollector —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.33.3 (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - Nominator has not provided a valid reason for deletion (see WP:DEL#REASON and WP:GOOGLEHITS) and has been notified of such on his talk page. Article appears to cite significant coverage in reliable independent sources (most notably ToyFare Magazine) and would appear to pass WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have thought anyone could infer that "129 hits" means "no significant coverage found". Can't we be brief anymore? I have not found adequate coverage from my web searches, but cannot tell how much is in print. —fetch ·comms 13:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Coverage in ToyFare cited in article is sufficient to pass WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - As a side note, Marie-Rosalie Cadron-Jetté was an article nominated for deletion on the basis of ~100 Bing hits that today is of Good Article status and has over 100 citations. Which explains why I'm not terribly impressed by Bing stats being cited as support for deletion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Although it is not an acceptable source to site within the article, this page on the company's website shows their work on the cover of ToyFare magazine ToyFare Magazine Cover. It should help to confirm their work as being covered significantly within the magazine. StatueCollector (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)StatueCollector[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.