Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music Machine (film)


 * 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. Daniel (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Music Machine (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable film Dronebogus (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - No sources, doesn't even have an IMDb page. Only proof it exists is its sale on Amazon, therefore meaning it isn't notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. Definitely not notable enough to have a quotes section. WaddlesJP13 (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete due to insufficient sourcing. 07:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete we barely have enough sourcing to prove this exists. Since IMDb is not reliable, it lacking an IMDb entry however means nothing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable by definition of its existence, as depicted here or here and by the participation of star names such as Pat Boone and Stan Freberg. Alan Oppenheimer also has a Wikipedia entry. Wikipedia has entries in the tens of thousands with "citations missing" tags. Rather than deletion, the procedure to follow is addition of sources. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment “it exists” isn’t a valid reason to keep it. Having moderately famous names in it is not a reason to keep it (stuff with Tim Curry in it has been deleted, after all). Some other article being XYZ in a way unrelated to deletion precedent is not a valid reason to keep it. If there are actually sources about this somewhere then add them. Dronebogus (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, User:Roman Spinner, notability is not inherited, please read WP:NOTINHERITED. I have seen that you were directed to also read WP:NINI and WP:GNG in another AfD, but appears you have not. Films must be judged based on their own merit. Who appears in them, who directs them, and whether or not there are Wikipedia articles on the English Wikipedia for those actors/crewmembers, or an article on the film on another language's Wikipedia are all arguments that have no merit in a deletion discussion.  Therefore, unless you can provide reviews to this film, or other coverage on the film that passes WP:NFILM, I am afraid that your Keep comment will be ignored by any admin closing this discussion as you have not addressed the concerns of the notability of this film adequately.   Donald D23   talk to me  22:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donald D23   talk to me  22:05, 21 July 2021 (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.