Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gateway Pictures


 * 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 -- JForget  22:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Gateway Pictures

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. No assertations of notability in the article, no independent references from reliable sources. While there was a Gateway Pictures that made the 1939 film mentioned, I don't beileve this is the same company - the website domain was only created last year through GoDaddy. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  16:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete a shimmering logo does not an article make. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep No evidence that the companies are different OR the same. Therefore, I recommend removing this article's deletion status and maintaining its stub status so other users can (hopefully) build upon this info. FennShysa offers no evidence that this is spam other than his own "belief". Aliveatoms (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC) — Aliveatoms (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete Non-notable company. A Google News Archive search returns no reliable sources. Even if this was the same company that made the 1939 film, notability is not inherited, so this article should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No assertion of notability, other than a movie which doesn't appear to be notable itself. external links lead nowhere, and tell you nothing. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  18:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non notable company. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  18:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Cunard's research. No RS = no article. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * STRONGLY DISAGREE - KEEP  I feel this is bordering on an edit war, and strongly feel this article should not be deleted. This article in no way violates the five pillars of Wikipedia. This is a valid encyclopedia entry because it is of historical fact that this company produced the 1939 film. Further more, Amazon cites the film as "one of the top 100 classic films of all time". I think what is causing the problems is the web site, which I agree can neither be proven nor disproven to be the same "Gateway Pictures". Therefore, I request that this deletion status be immediately removed (there are many other pages with much less info available that are part of the wikipedia). Furthermore, I submit that as a compromise, the link to the web page also be removed from the wiki entry, and that we leave this as stub status so others can contribute relevant info. Aliveatoms (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC) — Aliveatoms (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * User has already registered a boldfaced "keep" opinion above; I've therefore struck this one out. You get only one, Aliveatoms. Deor (talk) 01:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Actually, the name of the production company for Bad Boy was Gateway Productions, not Gateway Pictures, and it was run by Richard C. Kahn and Herbert Meyer (p. 54, center column). There was a different, short-lived Gateway Productions in Fort Lee, New Jersey, in the late 1940s, run by O. A. Peters and Thomas Taglianetti. However, all I can find on the company that's the topic of this article is a New York Department of State filing dated a month ago. With no reliable sources in evidence that give any substantive information about this (apparently newly formed) outfit or its activities, the article utterly fails WP:CORP. Deor (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2009 (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.