Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detroit Center Studios


 * 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. The consensus would appear to be that all coverage that isn't a passing mention is from local sources, and thus the consensus is to delete. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Detroit Center Studios

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-Notable Company Bronsons-Ghost (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC) — Bronsons-Ghost (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete - Per nom. Also possible candidate for Speedy Delete. The studio's official website is no longer existent and a search of Google and Yahoo shows nearly zilch with regard to any information about the company itself, In fact the only hits that come up are about the proposed studio and sale of the MGM Grand temporary casino to the owners of the Detroit Center Studios and nothing more and as I posted in the article earlier the project ended up being scrapped and abandoned anyway, following which the property where the studio was to be located was later sold to the City of Detroit. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 21:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 21:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep While not questioning the good faith of someone who created an account soley to nominate this article for deletion and whose knowledge of what to do and where absolutely quacks of sock or puppet, the topic does appear to be immintantly sourcable, and the topic meets WP:N. It does not matter that the deal fell through. What does matter is that the topic received persistant and in-depth coverage over an extended period of time... enough to be worthy of note, and such notabilty is not temporary.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment, Are you accusing me of being a sock puppet? because sir I take offense to that unfounded accusation. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 01:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear so&mdash;it appears that he is suggesting that the nominator may be one. Bongo  matic  02:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup... not TheGoofyGolfer at all. If he would look at the 3-lifetime-edit history of the nominator, he might beter understand my comment.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * here. Bongo  matic  02:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also up above in the contribs link after the SPA tag.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. MQS found the only non-local sources for this. One is a passing mention, one appears to be a reprocessed press release distributed by AP. Other mentions are in very local sources. Bongo  matic  02:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment My sincere apologizes to you Schmidt I obviously misunderstood your comments. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 03:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No harm, no foul. No offense taken.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge somewhere, perhaps to Motown Motion Picture Studios? Stuartyeates (talk) 04:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Request Since we've reached the 7 day time limit I'll like to formally request that this AfD be relisted so that we can try and get a better consensus and input from more Wikipedians. I would like to point out that while I whole heartedly support the deletion of this article I think it should be done fairly and balanced and unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case as of right now due to the current votes being far and few. I'd feel a lot better if more users would give their input before any final action is taken. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 05:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur. Please relist for extended discussion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unfortunately there does not seem to exist enough coverage for this subject to pass our notability guidelines. With thanks to all the participants, Drmies (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 03:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)




 * A failed production studio shouldn't have it's own article IMO. It should be merged into the Motown Motion Picture Studios article, because that studio is directly related to this one. --Madison-chan (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If a sourced connection between the two is available, then a redirect and merge is sensible.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Closure At this time I would like to request that Wikipedians refrain from any further votes as the voting period has now expired and request that an admin close and provide an official tally of the votes herein. By my count the unofficial final tally is 4 for Deletion (Bronsons-Ghost, TheGoofyGolfer, Bongomatic and Drmies), 1 for Keep (Schmidt) and 2 for merger to Motown Motion Picture Studios (Stuartyeates and Madison-chan). Therefore the vote is to DELETE this article accordingly. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedians may continue to comment as long as the discussion remains open. I hasten to remind you that AFD is NOT simply a count of heads. A closure is based upon review of the weaknesses and strengths of various arguments, upon proper application, or not, of policy and guideline in those arguments, and upon what ultimately serves to improve the project. And to offer a further consideration to my "keep" above, a Merge seems a reasonable alternative if not kept, as maintaining sourced information for out readers in a location that makes sense serves the project.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 10:33, 24 November 2011 (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.