Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instruction Through 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 redirect to Daniel Amos. Reasonable search term (non-admin closure) ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 18:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Instruction Through Film[edit]

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

Not a notable release. It has very little coverage in WP:RS to support an article on its own. It may be worth a mention at Daniel Amos, but a redirect is probably uncalled for because of the commonness/vagueness of the title. JFHJr (㊟) 22:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Someone should attempt to improve it before it is simply deleted. The goal of Wikipedia used to be to constantly expand the amount of articles, not find any little reason to delete them. Audiori (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Daniel Amos. I can't find any evidence of notability: no reviews (maybe there are mentions in general articles on the band, but I've not seen any). If there is any sourceable information, it could be added to Daniel Amos. Right now, the best we can do is redirect so that if somebody searches for it they can at least find out who it's by. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Daniel Amos. Folowing User:Audiori's advice before coming here to opine, I gave the article a facelift.[1] But as widely released as this film is, I was unable to find any reviews or coverage. There were hints that the thing did receive some sort of positive attention,[2] but I was unable to find them. To enlighten our readers about the group, I believe that we can redirect for now and undelete if and or when sources come forward. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Daniel Amos. Lacks coverage but should redirect to where it's mentioned. --Michig (talk) 09:14, 16 December 2012 (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.