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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allied Artists International[edit]

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

Nominated on behalf of Cptnono (talk · contribs), who asserts apparent lack of notability. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 23:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tcncv. Significant coverage from independent sources has not been provided. There were some legal issues with parent company (?) and/or an executive but that seems to be it.Cptnono (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Undecided~~Delete – The article as it stands is no good. But at one time there was an Allied Artists movie studio. It might be useful to have some kind of article about them. I don't know what the article would be called, and I know you'd have to start over to write it. If the choice is keep the current article or delete it, I'd have to say delete. Rees11 (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is NOT Allied Artists Pictures Corporation, which was a movie studio. There is no notability at all. Someone is trying to mislead others into thinking that it is the same company as the movie studio, but it has no relationship to the historic movie studio other than sharing part of the name.ChinaUpdater (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Allied Artist International, which has been involved in 3 very minor productions (imdb.com), seems to be trying to piggy back on the historical reputation of Allied Artists Pictures Corporation, which has produced over 100 films, and distributed over 400 films! (imdb.com) Allied Artist International is NOT the successor to Allied Artists Pictures Corporation, because that company is still in existence, with productions in development! (imdb.com)icouce —Preceding undated comment added 03:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: Allied Artists International, Inc. is the parent company of Allied Artists Pictures and if you have IMDb Pro you can see it here here. It clearly shows that Allied Artists Pictures is a subsidiary of Allied Artists International and shows two films in production and one in development, with a history of releases going back many years. The trademark assignments on the USPTO site show that Allied Artists International has been assigned all trademark rights, as shown here. The "old" Allied Artists Corporation in Delaware was void until recently, when someone filed false annual statements for the years 1979 to the present. Filing false annual reports and paying back taxes for a defunct corporation does not revive that corporation or grant corporate authority to the falsely reported officers. The Delaware Attorney General's Consumer Fraud Division is currently investigating as one of the officers listed in the 1979 annual report (filed in 2008) wasn't even born until 1988 and therefore could not have been an officer in 1979. Also, it is Allied Artists International that is suing for trademark infringement, not the other way around. All counterclaims by the defendants have been dismissed by the federal judge overseeing the lawsuit. There's an overview of that case here, and you can see the actual documents on the court's website if you subscribe. I think Allied Artists International is noteable, but understand that some may disagree. I don't think the article should be based on assumptions or connecting dots that don't necessarily connect. Let's create an accurate and well sourced article that is truly neutral, with no slant for or against anyone. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 07:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Note: ChinaUpdater is involved in the current dispute.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 13:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unionhawk is correct. I was not at first, but now I am (I just found out that editing at Wikipedia can be addicting when all of your edits, reliably sourced, get deleted by what appears to be an alter ego of the subject of an article). I came back here to sign, after I noticed I was not logged in, and saw my comment was deleted and replaced by Unionhawk with his signed one, which made me angry. But then I noticed that the content seems to be moved to the bottom of the page, without deletion of any of my content, by Unionhawk. I am unsure where and how to place comments, as I am a (relatively) new editor, not a lawyer, and certainly not a wikilawyer, which seems to be the only thing lower than a lawyer (that was supposed to be yet another lawyer joke... yawn). ChinaUpdater (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retain – This company is the successor to the original motion picture company and you can find proof of that on the United States Patent & Trademark Office website and IMDb, which lists them with new motion pictures in production. Allied Artists International, Inc. is listed as the parent of Allied Artists Pictures. The USPTO shows them to be the only entity holding those trademarks, and shows all of the historical trademarks having been assigned to them. To say this company is not notable is false. I believe ChinaUpdater has a WP: COI and has been involved in an edit war that caused the article to be protected in the first place. I question ChinaUpdater's neutrality and suggest his edit history be reviewed. --TechnicalExcellence (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: TechnicalExcellence is involved in the current dispute.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 13:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cptnono. Crafty (talk) 09:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite. There are a series of complications with this article—mostly because of the edit war. Despite that, I think there is a case to be made for retention, but with some heavy editing to address the obvious shortcomings.
With regard to notability, as near as I can determine, (and I did quite a lot of determining) this company is the product of the bankruptcy sale of the trademarks of a mid-sized movie production company (the original company has an article at Allied Artists Pictures Corporation, and is notable in its own right). Operating as Consolidated Allied Companies (but also known under several other similar names listed in USPTO trademark records), and using the trademark "Allied Artists", the new company had some trouble in the 1980s when its CEO (Kimball D. Richards, a.k.a. Kim) was convicted of several major frauds. Now going by the name Allied Artists International (one of the original trademarks), it continues to work in the entertainment industry, but mostly as an agent or promoter for singers and bands. It appears that Kim Richards has returned as CEO. Now, when known as Consolidated Allied Companies, it was described as being complicit in the frauds in a series of articles, particularly in the L.A. Times (e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]) and in a series of similar articles in the Wall Street Journal, L.A. Daily News, O.C. Register and S.D. Union-Tribune (published from 1988 to 1990) and some additional information from Dow Jones at other times (all available on Factiva; I can supply citations if anyone really wants to know). The judgment on appeal in United States v. Griffith, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 24314 (LexisNexis) also describes this case. Additionally, there's a recent lawsuit brought by a company also operating as Allied Artists which thought it had bought the trademarks from the aforementioned Allied Artists International, but which is now claiming that the marks were not relinquished as per the contract; court records document this action. So I think that meets WP:GNG and WP:CORP for significant secondary-source coverage, though surprisingly enough, not so much because of Allied's work in the entertainment industry, but rather their legal troubles past and present.
Now, with regard to the article itself, there has been a rather ugly edit war between Warriorboy85 (talk · contribs) and ChinaUpdater (talk · contribs), involving 3-revert violations, possible conflicts of interest, etc.. The article is currently fully-protected, both editors have been warned extensively, and Warriorboy85 was blocked indefinitely for making a legal threat. On the talk page, I provided an outline of what I think is neutral and well-sourced material that could be added to this article; I think that represents a workable outline for article rescue.
By way of disclosure, I'm not involved in the edit war directly, but I have acted as an intermediary between the parties and made my own recommendations. TheFeds 18:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

TheFeds, what is the source for saying "this company is the product of the bankruptcy sale of the trademarks"?
Anyone can get a trademark of any defunct corporation by simply applying, but this does not make it NOTABLE. How does application for a trademark with part of a name make a company NOTABLE?
Allied Artists Pictures Corporation still exists, since 1976, per the link I provided you in the State of New York. Why allow confusion to be created by "NOTABILITY BY SIMILAR NAME"? Please withhold your vote until more research is done, as you have done much, but not all. ChinaUpdater (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kimball D. Richards of Consolidated Allied Companies is the subject of those legal cases between '87-'90 and thus the LA Times coverage not the this new Allied Artists International. Allied Artists International has not received significant coverage. Kimball D. Richards might meet general notability guidelines.Cptnono (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it's rather complicated, but see this USPTO filing (among others) which describes the transfer of trademarks from the old Allied Artists Pictures Corporation to a "Allied Artists Records and Studios" "aka Allied Artists Records" (both names cited as part of Consolidated Allied Companies in the Times and elsewhere), while listing "Allied Artists International, Inc." as the correspondence addressee (i.e. the name presently used). When you factor in things like both CAC and AAI being in the same city, using the same lawyer, managing the same bands and having Kim Richards as CEO, it's pretty clear that these are the same entity operating under several similar names. Now granted, AAI is currently registered in Nevada, but this seems to have been a reincorporation of the existing company rather than the establishment of a new corporation with no association to the old one. (Contrast this with the old, defunct AAPC and the Allied Artists that is suing for trademark infringement; those are both separate entities from AAI.)
And I agree that Kimball Richards probably merits an article as a result of his coverage in the news. TheFeds 20:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You seem informed TheFeds, but have one issue backwards. The old AAPC is not suing anyone. The lawsuit was brought by AAI against Robert Rooks and two brand new corporations in Nevada and California that are alleged by AAI to have been named AAPC in violation of AAI's trademarks. Rooks filed a counterclaim alleging that he bought the trademarks, but the judge found that claim to be meritless and dismissed the counterclaim with prejudice. That means that the only entity suing is AAI and the persons being sued are Robert Rooks, his co-defendants and the two corporations he formed and named AAPC in the year 2008. The only side of that lawsuit that can lose is the defendant's side, because the counterclaims have all been dismissed. I found that on the court's Pacer Website. The name of the case is Allied Artists International, Inc. v. Robert N. Rooks, et al, CA USDC No. 08-cv-08116(GAF)-Rz. It is therefore inaccurate to say that AAI is being sued or that they are being sued for fraud related to not turning over the trademarks to AAPC. That claim has already been adjudicated and can't be raised again. I hope this clears up any confusion. --TechnicalExcellence (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it is the same entity there should only be one article not two (neither Allied Artists Pictures Corporation or Allied Artists International look notable to me, though). If the legal proceedings were against Kimball Richards and not the company then the article should be about Richards.Cptnono (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allied Artists Pictures Corporation is the historical and defunct movie company—to me, that goes in a separate article because they were sold off in pieces when they went bankrupt, and their notability would be a question for a separate AfD. Are you considering CAC and AAI (with an article at Allied Artists International) as the same company? If so, do you think that listing it as Consolidated Allied Companies would be the more appropriate title, given that during the 1980s, it was referred to as such by the media? Or do you think that it's still not enough coverage of the company, and we should just write an article about Richards (and delete CAC/AAI)? TheFeds 21:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started an article about Kimball Dean Richards here[6]75.84.158.222 (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In any case, it seems notability is a moot point if the article is part of a pattern of behavior design do confer undeserved notability for the pursposes of perpetuating fruad and other criminal activity. User:icouce 20:01, 22 October 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.15.185 (talk)

Comment I don't know what the fuck is going on here, but ChinaUpdater would probably do better to keep his Wall of Text rants relating to this subject on this page as opposed to my talkpage. And no, I'm not switching my !vote to keep. Crafty (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments not related to AfD issues (by 75.84.158.222, ChinaUser, 99.166.95.142 and TheFeds) are hidden below. TheFeds 19:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

← Click to view.

Comment on User:TechnicalExcellence -
- I assert suspicion that User:TechnicalExcellence is SP for User:WarriorBoy85 because of the first entry of User:TechnicalExcellence's talk page, "Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles, as you did with FTC Networks... - User:OscarTheCat3 02:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)." which links to WarriorBoy85 via [[7]], which relates [[[8]], and Allied Artists Records - User:TechnicalExcellence is SP for WarriorBoy85, who is, or is SP for Kimball Dean Richards, the CEO of United Artists International per edits by both User:TechnicalExcellence and for User:WarriorBoy85. See his first talk page psuedo-FTC related entry here [[9]], has this "Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles, as you did with FTC Networks... - User:OscarTheCat3 02:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)." which links to WarriorBoy85 via [[10]], which is another Advert and COI page for Allied Artists Records, which is the one and the same with Allied Artists Internationl via WarriorBoy per here[11]. Both articles set up for making false legal claimsand its history page is here[[12]], which has WarriorBoy written all over. More to come. Judge for yourself! 75.84.158.222 (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on SP WarriorBoy85 -

User:WarriorBoy85 is SP for Kimball Dean Richards, OWNER of Allied Artists Records per here[13], which IS Allied Artists International per links created by User:WarriorBoy here[14]. “(Kimball Dean) Richards now (1984) owns Allied Artists Records – a recording and promotional company – in Los Angeles” [15], Mohave Daily Miner, July 13, 1984, By Kathryn Jendrasiak, per the news story in which this person off with only three years probation for soliciting an actual MURDER per here [16]. ChinaUpdater (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Links Everyone should see to before deciding -

If there is still any doubt about User: WarriorBoy85 and User:TechnicalExcellence, both SP and in COI for Allied Artists Records, which is SP for Allied Artists International per here[17] and here[18], organizaitions, see HERE[19], and here[20], where the same fraud that Kimball Dean Richards, aka Allied Artists Records, and Allied Artists was Indicted for here[21], and Convicted and Sentenced for here[22], for MAJOR FRAUD using these same names, similar to what is now happening at Wikipedia, see here[23]. Also see here[24], where WarriorBoy redirected Allied Artists from here [25] to here[26]. ChinaUpdater (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does any of this have to do with the question here, which is of the notability of this article's subject? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - IMORTANT - Allied Artists Pictures Corporation is still in existence, HERE [27].-

Allied Artists International is not Notable, but simply got a trademark for similar names, in order to mislead, using the same scheme for which The Feds got indictments and convictions. See

HERE[28], for the real Allied Artists Pictures Corporation. The same scheme to mislead for which The Feds got 18 counts of conviction should not be allowed on Wikipedia. Allied Artists International should not be allowed to become notable simply by tricking enough users into thinking they are somehow "successors in interest" to an actual existing company, which it is not.ChinaUpdater (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: for clarity, when you say "The Feds", are you referring to me, or the United States Federal Government? (I don't recall getting indictments for anyone, but that was a long time ago....) TheFeds 21:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Stubify to help resolve the disputes Similar to what we would do if the article was coming off of WP:OFFICE protection and the article was made into a stub as a result of that. I believe this article has some notability and could probably be re-built into a halfway decent article. Best, Mifter (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring all of the shenanigans between a couple of editors, the problem still remains that there are not any sources.Cptnono (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless proper referencing can be provided. If someone wants to save and work on it then userfy it. Otherwise, it seems Kim Richards is notable enough to have an article, per the WSJ articles provided above. Perhaps this one ought to be junked and that one written instead. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:ChinaUpdater's repeated disruption[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:ChinaUpdater.27s_repeated_BLP_violations and comment. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He was indef'd in that thread. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not Notable. Writer's Cramp (talk) 05:44, 23 October 2009 (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.