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. henrik•talk 17:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promenade Pictures[edit]

Lacks Notability and Reliable Sources 2008Olympian _chitchat^seemywork 22:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Advocate70 neglected to notify me of this nomination, as the initial creator and major editor of the article. Notability is clear in the studio's relationship with Frank Yablans, and the Hollywood Reporter is a notable and reliable source. The association with Salem Radio Network also makes the studio notable. Note that I have no association with the studio and only created the article because I ran across a red link on some other page, I don't even remember which one. Corvus cornix_talk 23:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment: Films with Christian Slater, Elle Fanning, Michael Keaton, Jason Lee, Jason Mewes, Rob Schneider, Ben Kingsley, Marcia Gay Harden, Patrick Muldoon, Elliott Gould, Nicollette Sheridan, Miguel Ferrer, Eliza Dushku and Howie Mandel are being made by this company. I think that makes it notable. Corvus cornix_talk 23:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Sorry, didn't see that as part of the three-step process outlined in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion, it is in the notes under the instructions, not part of them. It seems Corvus found out about it in about an hour of its listing, however, so I see no harm done. The Hollywood Reporter reference is just a link to the Wikipedia entry for the Hollywood Reporter, not anything about Promenade. Nor is there any reliable source for the Salem Radio Network reference. As it stands, the article has no reliable sources giving it notability, and everything on it is original research from their website. I'm just looking at the entry as is.--2008Olympian _chitchat^seemywork 00:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Did you bother to look at the inline references, such as this and [1]? And even if there were no sources, which is not the case here, that is not grounds for deletion. I will admit that the link I provided initially to the Creator Kids site has changed from what it was at the time. Corvus cornix_talk 00:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - How would the article get notability without any reliable sources? See WP:N--2008Olympian _chitchat^seemywork 01:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You haven't answered as to why you think the Hollywood Reporter is not a reliable source. Corvus cornix_talk 22:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        My last comment referred to the statement "even if there were no sources, which is not the case here, that is not grounds for deletion." I addressed the Hollywood Reporter in the comment before that one. Let's see if we can get some other comments on the entry.--2008Olympian _chitchat^seemywork 03:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe I'm dense, but I still don't see why the Hollywood Reporter link is not a reliable source. And I'm not going to stop discussing this just because nobody else has. I'm not stopping other people from commenting, in fact I welcome them, but if you keep making unsupported contentions, I'm going to call you on them. Corvus cornix_talk 18:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        "The Hollywood Reporter reference is just a link to the Wikipedia entry for the Hollywood Reporter, not anything about Promenade." It's not unsupported, go down to the link and click on it and see what happens. As for unsupported statements, you still haven't explained your statement that, "even if there were no sources, which is not the case here, that is not grounds for deletion." How would an article get notability without any reliable sources? It would be more useful to see if we can get some other user comments on the entry.--2008Olympian _chitchat^seemywork 03:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<-unindent Please look at the link. Corvus cornix_talk 19:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to the coverage already noted in the article, a quick google news search shows this Fox news article amongst others. -- Whpq (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spec ial K 16:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So far, their one major release was a critical and commercial flop, but it got mainstream press and had big names attached. Notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:03, 8 September 2008 (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.