Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comedy thriller


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 09:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Comedy thriller

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The genre does not seems to be fit as it requires to be merged in comedy film or thriller film. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC) SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * KEEP Genre in widespread use, first used in early 20th Century. Appears in Oxford Dictionary, and multiple websites as a searchable genre.  Listed examples are properly sourced.  Scr ★ pIron IV 15:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a well known and popular genre used in film, television, novels. Neptune&#39;s Trident (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * '''Keep per ScrapIronIV. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 16:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Fairly mainstream sub-genre like Comedy horror and it is even a general category at Allmovie. I get why it was nominated, but we do cover major sub-genres here at Wikipedia. If SuperHero wants to delete film genre clutter from Wikipedia we have a stack of categories that need to go and I'd be happy to point him in the right direction. Betty Logan (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable since Google Books here appears to show the term used in multiple books. Probably would not be a very meaty article, but the coverage exists nonetheless. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * weak delete in its current form. If it is indeed a well established term and/or genre, then it should be kept of course. However the current sourcing in the article (3 new york times articles) is by no means sufficient to confirm that. I would at least require the use by different film critics from different outlets as well or better the usage/desccription in scholarly journals or books on film/movies. There is a danger here that terms get established via wikipedia which is something to be avoided here.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Looking at the other postings here, i'd like to add that the sources mentioned by ScrapIronIV and Erik seem sufficient, but some of them would need to be verified in detail and integrated into the article. Also a comment on Superhero's rationale for the AfD as it doesn't seem to be valid. Any genre that is established in reputable external sources can have its own article. Even if an overview article handles several genre at once, this entry would still need to exist as redirect at least and with enough content it could always be extended into an article of its own rather than being a paragraph or subsection in an overview article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep; merging this to either comedy or thriller wouldn't be appropriate. This is a distinct genre and has received enough coverage to warrant a standalone article. The only thing is that the sources currently present in the article give a weak hint that this might not have been covered significantly. This can be solved by improving the article and adding more content and sources to the page (some are given above). Deletion or merging won't help. --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: well established genre. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.