Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lakehurst Cinemas


 * 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   no consensus. The primary claim to notability (the number of movie screens present) was rebutted, but I can't say consensus to delete formed in this discussion. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  11:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Lakehurst Cinemas

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Apparently non-notable movie theater. Only third-party reliable source appears to be about the building that went up after the subject was demolished. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP -- GCC Lakehurst was a record holder in 1987 for most movie screens in a theatre. Will fire up the scanner if I need to; I'm staring at the News Sun article published in January 2007 after the place closed.--jonrev (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * SOURCE: Read it and weep...--jonrev (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to weep yet (though I do have a box of Kleenex handy). Read what I posted further down the page ;)   TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 00:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Another, and yet another source with information on the theatre.--jonrev (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And one is user submitted and the other is a self published source.  Read WP:RS.  It helps illustrate what is reliable and what isn't.   TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 01:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (go to the very bottom) --jonrev (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete unless someone finds something after firing up the scanner. Not that the article mentions it, but I find it hard to believe that 12 screens in a multiplex was a world record in 1987.  Mandsford (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is the kind of fascinating trivia question I love wikipedia for.  The article on Toronto Eaton Centre says that in 1979, its Cineplex was "the largest in the world with 18 screens."   The Multiplex (movie theater) entry (an article which really could use a nice history section, or coordinated with Movie_theater) fudges and says the Toronto location was king "for several years."  So Mansford is right that's Lakehurst never held a world record. But, in the U.S., the 2005 Lake County News-Sun article cited by jonrev says Lakehurst was "once touted as having the most movie screens under one roof in the U.S."  Also, this 2003 Sun-News article says in part "But Fogelson pointed out, with accuracy, that Lakehurst Cinema was once the largest multiplex in the nation."  A 1996 NPR piece (pay access link) says the first "multiplex" opened in 1963 (two screens), and puts the world's largest at that time (1996) at 25.  But, alas, there is evidence that other 12 screen multiplexes existed by 1987, such as a 1985 Newsday piece that references two such 12-screen theaters already in existence in New York, one of which appears it may have opened in 1979.  I suspect the Lakehurst Cinema had some convoluted claim in 1987 that it was the "largest" something or other, though.  It does seems to have enough press to make it worth keeping.--Milowent (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Neutral per the lots of sources above. even if it was a world record, we would need multiple reliable sources to back it up, which only one seems to exist. Even then it would be borderline notable.   TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 23:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, not notable enough. There are thousands of movie theaters that have won awards and/or been demolished, and they dont have articles. Alan  -  talk  05:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * For what its worth:
 * The theatre was the first 12-screen (stated in several sources), and was controversial for management first showing, then pulling several films; particularly New Jack City, as the result of a large gang brawl in the cinema's parking lot in 1991 (parts of Waukegan are notable for being high-crime areas; Lakehurst Mall's area was one during its final decade). This is mentioned in numerous sources. It is also one of the four that canceled showings of Boyz N the Hood after gang-related violence. While it might not be interesting or notable to someone in California for example, the theatre is notable for fans of the film, and for people of the Chicagoland area. The theatre was also extremely popular among soldiers stationed at Naval Station Great Lakes due to its proximity to the base. I will expand the article tonight with the above-posted sources.--jonrev (talk) 08:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Have done some work on the article, if further improvements are needed please feel free to help out. --jonrev (talk) 05:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Lakehurst Cinemas passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines because it is covered in multiple independent reliable sources. To : There are multiple reliable sources about this company. This article from Lake County News-Sun was published on December 17, 2003, four years before Lakehurst Cinemas was demolished. To : The article cites many reliable sources about this movie theater. In addition to the Lake County News-Sun article mentioned above, there are more sources, such as this, this, and this. To : notability is determined by whether or not the subject has reliable sources. Your "not notable enough" argument falls afoul of Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Cunard (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. While ordinarily the coverage the theater received would satisfy the GNG, I believe the evidence brought forward in this debate shows that the "most screens" claim was clearly incorrect, that the news sources involved failed to fact-check the articles but instead relied on promotional claims that turned out to be inaccurate, and that notability therefor fails because the particular sources cited end up failing WP:RS. This is an unusual case, and a certain amount of IAR underlies my !vote. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - sufficient independent coverage by reliable sources. Racepacket (talk) 09:52, 23 November 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.