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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Title and Art[edit]

Pacific Title and Art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

lacks notability and coverage Alan - talk 00:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• ahem riffic (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Comprehensive sources are not easy to find and piecing this company's history together will take work, but this was an important Hollywood company for many decades. The 2009 Variety article already cited gives some background, and here's some samples of stuff findable on Google: A 1997 Los Angeles Daily News article calls it "Hollywood's oldest post-production operation".[1] There are multiple sources about its early days under Leon Schlesinger[2] and here is a 1964 LIFE article confirming that Pacific was still making "the bulk of Hollywood's titles" at that point. [3] A 2007 Hollywood Reporter article gives more historical background.[4] --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep References are available: Pacific Title and Art Studio - IMDB, Extra credits: The history and collection of Pacific Title and Art Studio by Harris, Adam Duncan, Ph.D.. Nimuaq (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Reference added. More are available. Bad nomination (see creator's talk page): call for WP:SNOW. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indeed a bad nomination, it seems there were no attempt to find reliable sources prior to nomination. Nimuaq (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition to this article, I also think neither of these nominations by the user support WP:DEL#REASON:

( articles are created by the User:Riffic and nominated for deletion by the user:)

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dash_Express - nominated at 00:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skafish - nominated at 00:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Balser Skirvin - nominated at 00:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I hope the nominations are valid and the above list is just a coincidence and not to violate WP:GOODFAITH. Nimuaq (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A firm that's been in existence for 90 years, successfully navigated a technological change that made its original product line obsolete, and that's been credited for the production of dozens of culturally significant Hollywood films has earned a place in an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep and close Nominator appears to have a misunderstanding of WP:DEL#REASON, WP:GNG and WP:NTEMP. Even the most minimal of WP:BEFORE finds in news books and schoar the coverage the nominator claims does not exist. WP:GNG is met. WP:CORP is met. WP:NOTABILITY is met. WP:HEY Anyone? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:30, 1 May 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.