Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied Artists International
but rewrite. There are a series of complications with this article—mostly because of the edit war. Despite that, I think there is a case to be made for retention, but with some heavy editing to address the obvious shortcomings.With regard to notability, as near as I can determine, (and I did Talk:Allied_Artists_International#Feds.27_findings_of_fact|quite a lot of determining) this company is the product of the bankruptcy sale of the trademarks of a mid-sized movie production company (the original company has an article at Allied Artists Pictures Corporation, and is notable in its own right). Operating as Consolidated Allied Companies (but also known under several other similar names listed in USPTO trademark records), and using the trademark "Allied Artists", the new company had some trouble in the 1980s when its CEO (Kimball D. Richards, a.k.a. Kim) was convicted of several major frauds. Now going by the name Allied Artists International (one of the original trademarks), it continues to work in the entertainment industry, but mostly as an agent or promoter for singers and bands. It appears that Kim Richards has returned as CEO. Now, when known as Consolidated Allied Companies, it was described as being complicit in the frauds in a series of articles, particularly in the L.A. Times (e.g. http://articles.latimes.com/1990-03-09/local/me-2320_1_equipment-leasing-scheme, http://articles.latimes.com/1990-05-01/business/fi-250_1_richard-richards, http://articles.latimes.com/1988-05-12/news/mn-4012_1_bank-fraud, http://articles.latimes.com/1989-01-27/business/fi-1571_1_bank-fraud and http://articles.latimes.com/1987-01-26/business/fi-874_1_union-bank) and in a series of similar articles in the Wall Street Journal, L.A. Daily News, O.C. Register and S.D. Union-Tribune (published from 1988 to 1990) and some additional information from Dow Jones at other times (all available on Factiva; I can supply citations if anyone really wants to know). The judgment on appeal in ''United States v. Griffith'', 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 24314 (LexisNexis) also describes this case. Additionally, there's a recent lawsuit brought by a company also operating as Allied Artists which thought it had bought the trademarks from the aforementioned Allied Artists International, but which is now claiming that the marks were not relinquished as per the contract; court records document this action. ''So I think that meets  and  for significant secondary-source coverage'', though surprisingly enough, not so much because of Allied's work in the entertainment industry, but rather their legal troubles past and present.Now, with regard to the article itself, there has been a rather ugly edit war between {{user|Warriorboy85}} and {{user|ChinaUpdater}}, involving |3-revert violations, |possible conflicts of interest, etc.. The article is currently fully-protected, both editors have been warned extensively, and Warriorboy85 was blocked indefinitely for making a legal threat. On the talk page, I provided an outline of what I think is neutral and well-sourced material that could be added to this article; I think that represents a workable outline for article rescue.By way of disclosure, I'm not involved in the edit war directly, but I have acted as an intermediary between the parties and made my own recommendations
— User:TheFeds, 18:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:CORP||WP:3RR||WP:COI (Wikipedia:Notability)