Deletion of Purple and Brown

Comment: Nominator's reason above for deletion was "Non-notable short. No sources found".  The article made an assertion of notability when nominated.  |Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation in an article.  However, the assertion of notability was easy to verify with a http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Purple+and+Brown%22%2C+2006+BAFTA&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8 simple search and http://www.bafta.org/awards-database.html?pageNo=2&year=2006 one click of the mouse.  The nom's statement that no sources could be found and that the film is thus non-notable has been shown as incorrect
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NRVE)

Comment: The  standard is simple: significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail ...Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention ... A one sentence mention ... is plainly trivial." There are three references in the article. The first is two sentenceshttp://www.digitalartsonline.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=7586 and two sentences is not detailed, significant coverage. The second is an entry on a listhttp://www.bafta.org/awards-database.html?pageNo=2&year=2006 of BAFTA winners which is less than a sentence and is again not significant. The third is a news briefhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/nov/27/broadcasting.ITV about CiTV which has about a third of a sentence on this topic which is again trivial. An editor above points to  a six-sentence news briefhttp://www.animationmagazine.net/tv/aardmans-purple-and-brown-to-color-nick-u-k/ from Animation Magazine. I suppose good-faith editors could debate whether six sentences provides the detail and depth required to meet the "significant" standard, but even if we reached consensus this article was significant coverage (and reliable and independent) then we would only have one source when we need multiple sources. There seems to be an assertion above that we should take winning a BAFTA children's award in the short form category as an indicator of notability (that is, that winning this award will generally result in significant coverage in multiple reliable sources). I looked at other BAFTA children's award short form winners to see what sort of sources they had -- Nick Big Green Thing (2007),http://www.bafta.org/awards-database.html?year=2007&category=Children%27s&award=Short+Form My Say (2008),http://www.bafta.org/awards-database.html?year=2008&category=Children%27s&award=Short+Form See Something, Say Something (2009),http://www.bafta.org/awards-database.html?year=2009&category=Children%27s&award=Short+Form My Favourite Bedtime Story 2010http://www.bafta.org/awards-database.html?year=2010&category=Children%27s&award=Short+Form -- and I discovered that contrary to the assertions above, we generally do not write articles on winners of the BAFTA children's award in the short form category
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY)