Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goodrich Quality Theaters


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Goodrich Quality Theaters

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

Non-notable theater company. ~  JohnnyMrNinja  00:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 
 * Keep Seems a good-sized chain with a long history. And at least some references. On what basis do you consider it non-notable? DGG (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. Written much like promotional material at the moment, and I question the availability of reliable sources. Lexis-Nexis turns up nothing, and while I do get some hits on Google news, most are either trivial mentions or non-reliable sources.  If someone can source the material in the article with reliable and independent sources, I will gladly change to keep, but at the moment I'm not convinced. Cool3 (talk) 04:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  Aitias   // discussion 00:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Scanning the previews of the 118 gnews hits, lots of stuff on them opening and closing theaters; a little history, IMAX, quotes from the owner, etc it does seem like there is enough to support a less promotional article, though it would take some work.John Z (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This theater chain is listed by Boxoffice (magazine) as one of the "giants of exhibition" (ranked #21 among the largest theater chains in the United States). It should be possible to improve the article if there are still problems with it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, I see no problem in that article.--hnnvansier (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep 80 years of history and over 30 locations across several states is more than enough for me. There definitely is some junk in the article that needs to be cut (a coupon book for 60% popcorn? who cares?) and the Kernal Korn article needs to be merged in.  But the company itself is definitely notable enough. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:21, 1 March 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.