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) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC) reply

MGM-Pathé Communications (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

According to WP:ORG, not a notable company. Biglulu ( talk) 23:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, of which is was a short-lived incarnation, with no prejudice against re-creation, or Keep since there seem to be abundant sources. All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 23:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC).
  

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Despite the sorry state of the current article, the short-lived entity MGM-Pathé Communications meets WP:GNG in spades. IE: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] and many more. [8] [9] [10] The current stub could be expanded and sourced or the information could be included and sourced in several different places. WP:NTEMP anyone? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
• Redirect (or expand): Good research by MichaelQSchmidt. If someone wants to take it upon him/herself to make a proper stub out of the article, that seems fine. If not, the article should be redirected without any prejudice for an actual re-creation, as per Rich's reasoning. ~ |  twsx |  ^talk _cont | ~ 08:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep Excellent work by MichaelQSchmidt! Needless to say, the article should be kept now. Well referenced, obviously notable. Hint: @ Biglulu If you happen to agree, maybe withdrawing the nomination would make sense? Just an idea. ~ |  twsx |  ^talk _cont | ~ 09:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep, it did not look notable but MichaelQSchmidt found a lot of sources. Shabratha ( talk) 12:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep per meeting WP:ORG and per WP:NTEMP and per multiple topic sources suitable for building and sourcing an article on this company's rise and fall: LOTS of them. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• UPDATE: The 8-day-old new 315 characters (51 words) stub that was nominated, has been 10x expanded and sourced per my own researches to become a decent 3224 characters (508 words) multiple sourced start class article ready for a DYK. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Notable company, observed by multiple .edu sources and been in news. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• @ Nominator, I do not know your level of WP:BEFORE prior to you bringing this article to AFD but, according to WP:ORG, this short-lived company is a notable topic. There is no shame is admitting your concerns were addressed and withdrawing before someone closes this early as a "keep" per WP:OUTCOMES or WP:SNOW. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment Most of this information was present in the MGM article. I am still concerned that the story of this company (like many others) is not told clearly in terms of the predecessor and successor enterprises. That does not affect my preveious !vote of "redirect or keep". All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 15:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC).

Thanks Rich. The topic of MGM-Pathé is certainly intertwined with those of MGM, UA, Cannon and others, and certainly Kirk Kerkorian was buying and selling MGM over and over again, and Giancarlo Parretti fell into legal issues with his own dealings... but despite that intertwining, when one does a search for MGM-Pathé, scads of significant coverage dealing with the facts of that company comes forth. So much about this ill-fated company would over burden the already overlarge article on MGM, and no matter its history being part of other organizations, WP:ORG is met. What surprised me is the nominator not finding any of the dozens of available sources and somehow implying that something passing WP:GNG failed WP:ORG. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Rich That article is very big if anything from here is transferred it is going to be removed per WP:UNDUE. If not, it is going to take a long time. But first of all, this subject has been specifically covered by number of notable observers. So probably it is going to have its own article. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC) reply

It does seem to be heading to "snow" territory. Our other concerns are important, but don't affect the outcome here. All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 16:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC).

• Keep I agree that it is SNOW, but I don;t want to close it because I;ve dealt with it previously. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep WP:NTEMP stands here. Short lived . . . it still did live. It is a stepping stone in the path of information. Trackinfo ( talk) 00:12, 18 July 2014 (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.