Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMC Dine-In Madison 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge to Sundance Group. Other articles not subject to this AFD can be merged individually per WP:MERGE without need to bring them here. SoWhy 09:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AMC Dine-In Madison 6[edit]

AMC Dine-In Madison 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is the first location of a chain that was owned by a group, started by a celeb. There's nothing to indicate that this particular location is notable and the coverage speaks only to its opening. Nothing in depth to indicate it passes WP:ORG. StarM 19:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. StarM 19:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 19:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unique in 2007...not so much in 2017 when AMC's main competitor in the area has dining as a regular experience and its recliner seating experience with all their theaters. Finally, the other unique aspect, that they carry mainly art and indie films, is now dispensed with, as half the titles it has currently are mainstream Hollywood titles. Thus, now just another theater. Nate (chatter) 19:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition, I propose AMC Dine-In Kabuki 8 be added to this nomination for the same reasons. Nate (chatter) 21:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note I'm no longer familiar with bundling, but please do. StarM 02:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sundance Cinemas Sundance Group , which already has the pertinent details about this theater. --Lockley (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The entire concept is dead, though. Sundance Cinemas should probably redirected to the same section in the Sundance Group as it's clear AMC didn't renew the brand licensing agreement; as for this theater, keeping it just because 'FIRST!' isn't really a viable reason to keep this even as a redirect. Nate (chatter) 21:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if Sundance Cinemas had survived as a brand, and grew more than it then, then the first location might be notable, but I can't find for AMC itself or Regal having articles for their first location, so even if that had happen it probably still wouldn't warrant a standalone article. The information should of just only been a section in Sundance Cinemas to begin with. WikiVirusC (talk) 01:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 02:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
aye! makes perfect sense, I'd adjusted my !vote above --Lockley (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Switched to the same, no issue with a redirect. Nate (chatter) 01:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 9 July 2017 (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.