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 merge to Art Clokey. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Premavision[edit]

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

An animation studio. Admittedly long-established. But the author seems to think that he is somehow exempt from providing evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. RJH (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An animation studio is notable for the same reason a film studio would be, based on the success of its work. The article already list several notable creations of them. Dream Focus 20:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—This company is more notable for it's previous title, "Clokey Productions", for which there are numerous results. I've added some cites.—RJH (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Art Clokey or delete. This company appears to be simply a vehicle for Clokey, and has no notability independent of him. Of the three sources in the article, one is a PR blurb (neither independent, nor particularly reliable), one appears to make no mention of the studio itself (only Clokey himself) and the third make a couple of bare mentions (both as "Clokey's Premavision Studio[s]" -- indicating that it is noteworthy only in connection to Clokey). Google News/Books gives little indication of further non-trivial coverage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That wouldn't work because the company is associated with both Art and his son, each of whom have articles. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - As noted below, the son has no notability that is not WP:INHERITED from his father, and has in fact just been WP:SPEEDY deleted for that reason. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Art Clokey as this article seems to lifted from the later. While the company does appear to meet WP:CORPDEPTH the references cited are not independent. Mariepr (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Art Clokey as above -- insufficient sourcing for a separate article. Thanks, Rangoondispenser (talk) 23:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient cites for notability to be established. Merger not appropriate because company is associated with two men, father and son, and might well continue after son. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that the son is running the company is unsourced (as is most of the information in this article). In any case the son does not appear to have any notability beyond that WP:INHERITED from his father. Any sourced information that does arise, on the son's continuation of the father's projects, could therefore easily be included in the father's article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sourcing simply doesn't meet the standards required by WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2011 (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.