Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of IMAX venues With 15/70 or laser projectors

Add links
Source: 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 delete‎. Since this is almost certain to be relitigated, I'll provide a more detailed rationale for this decision.

The previous AfD for an almost-identical page was unanimously closed as Delete on 6 May 2024. On the same day, in reaction to this deletion, an editor created a page with almost the same title, boasting about getting around the AfD result by title-gaming. This was correctly deleted under WP:G4 by the closing admin, but when contested, the admin chose to err on the side of caution, and bring this to AfD.

Going by nose count, the Keeps and the Deletes are more or less balanced. Closer inspection, however, reveals that participation was largely driven by off-wiki canvassing, mobilizing members of the 33,000-strong Reddit sub to come to the defence of their pet page. But there was no need to engage in detective work here: the canvassed Keep votes were easily identifiable by their reliance on irrelevant arguments. Several Keeps limited their argument to attacking the previous AfD. That would have been a relevant argument at WP:DRV, where AfD results can be appealed. At this AfD, such arguments are meaningless. Even if the previous AfD reached the wrong conclusion, that would not be an argument to keep the article in this AfD.

Others noted that we must keep this page because it is the only place where all this information exists, having been painstakingly curated over a long period by devoted fans. That is not only a faulty argument for keeping an article under our notability guidelines, it in fact suggests the article qualifies as WP:OR, a policy that would render that information ineligible for Wikipedia. Other Keep arguments were of the WP:NOHARM, WP:USEFUL, or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS type. Several Keeps referenced a suggestion on the previous AfD to refocus and rewrite the article. While collaboration between editors is a key element of this project, following the advice of one participant in an AfD is not an automatic sanctuary against deletion, or even a relevant argument to keep a page. Once we discard the irrelevant !votes not based on policy or guidelines, we're left with a clear consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 13:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of IMAX venues With 15/70 or laser projectors

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

List of IMAX venues With 15/70 or laser projectors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
AfDs for this article:
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested G4, just nearly unanimously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of IMAX venues (4th nomination) and re-created because this is a very important page to a large community of 30k people rather than because they believe the close was wrong. Jmajeremy raises a potential solution, but it does not appear this has happened and it remains just a directory. Star Mississippi 03:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think listing this article for deletion so soon is WP:ZEALOUS. Give the author(s) a chance to continue writing and editing. Looking at the previous AfD, the rationale several people gave was that a simple list of all IMAX venues would be long and not very useful. For example, one user wrote "Imax accreditation is no longer considered significant as there are hundreds of venues now that hold it", which is true, but this article doesn't seek to simply list all accredited IMAX theatres--that list is already available on IMAX's website--this article has the goal of only summarizing venues which have a particular type of projection equipment. It is very similar to articles like List of films released in IMAX and List of drive-in theaters, so if those articles aren't simple directories, I don't see why this article would be considered one. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 03:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First of WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good reason for keeping something, but taking List of drive-in theaters, it's a list of notable (i.e. having there own page) drive in movie theatres. This means it is a navigation list and passes WP:LISTPURP. It's also extensively sourced to independent secondary sources that themselves list "drive in theatres" thus it complies with WP:NLIST. This article does neither of these things. If you want to restrict this to only notable IMAX venues (like the drive-in article) you'd be left with 13 items (by my count of Category:IMAX venues) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The venues included in this list are in fact notable. Many of them do have dedicated articles even if they haven't yet been linked properly, and many of the other theatres on this list are notable enough to have their own articles, if someone was inclined to write them. Out of the 1700 IMAX theatres that exist, we're talking about only a few dozen around the world which would meet the criteria to be included on this list. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 17:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The technology used in an IMAX theater itself is VERY notable. Simply telling the aspect ratio is very notable. This is crucial information that is not easily available elsewhere. In fact IMAX corporate owners seem to deliberately suppress this information to make people accept their lesser theaters. Rbvamm (talk) 07:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The technology used in an IMAX theater itself is VERY notable. Which is currently covered in the IMAX article quite adequately. Simply telling the aspect ratio is very notable. I'm not really sure what your trying to say here, but we do in fact have articles on a variety of aspect ratios. This is crucial information that is not easily available elsewhere. Then there's no way this could be notable even beside its directory characteristics. Also, WP:ITSUSEFUL. In fact IMAX corporate owners seem to deliberately suppress this information to make people accept their lesser theaters. WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    KEEP the full list User:Jmajeremy it is a very useful resource there is NO reason to delete this Aselwyn1 (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article and the previous article are a compilation of information that amounts to more than a simple “phone book” repetition of theater venues. There is technical information concerning the screen aspect ratio's, screen sizes, and specific projection types that must be sourced individually. IMAX's official list has only basic data concerning venues that this list sought to add to, not merely repeat. This article needs significantly better sourcing and formatting improvements, but in my interpretation, I believe it's a useful concept and not a mere repetitive directory. FriendlyToaster (talk) 04:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The users who voted on the previous article being deleted clearly don’t know/understand IMAX formats. I don’t see how it was WP:NOTDIR. It was not a directory. It was a listing of IMAX venues with their technical information. Technical information, that is also not available anywhere else (including IMAXs own website). I can perhaps understand the deletion because there are too many regular IMAX xenon theatres to list and that makes it more of a directory. But a more specialised list of Laser and 70mm venues is not very long and should be kept. Mrblue6 (talk) 04:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The primary reasons for deleting the previous article were claims that the same information already exists online (it doesn’t yet) and it was WP:NOTDIR. Folks who want to keep it are trying to save this valuable information. Give them a chance to update this article and make it relevant. There is an effort to potentially create this information on GITHUB. Maybe that can be a better home for the information but even if that happens, for the general public (not just a niche community) looking for information on 15/70 IMAX screens, it just won’t be as convenient as this. Reportersteven (talk) 06:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know you have been around for a very long time, but in that time the purpose of Wikipedia ha changed dramatically. That's not remotely what the project is for, which renders this not a valid keep !vote. Star Mississippi 12:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PA I am disappointed to see a long-time WP editor using ad hominem to dismiss someone's viewpoint 143.58.201.143 (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly is what Star Mississippi an ad hominem? Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pronouncing someone's vote as invalid on the basis of the editors lack of familiarity with how the purpose of Wikipedia has allegedly evolved since they were last active, is no better than dismissing an argument because an editor is new to Wikipedia. 143.58.201.143 (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As a recreation of a deleted article. If you have a problem with a close the place to go is WP:DR. A listing of IMAX venues with their technical information falls under the spirit of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but it more clearly falls under the letter of WP:NOTDATABASE. And this not available anywhere else is all the more reason to delete, as the job of Wikipedia is to follow the sources, not engage in original research or provide Free web hosting for your "WP:USEFUL" list. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not simply a list of IMAX venues with their technical information, it's a specific list of notable IMAX locations due to their rare projection technology. The information is all available elsewhere, but nowhere else in a single cohesive list. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 17:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There are two main purposes for lists: to provide internal navigation for Wikipedia and to have lists for groupings that have been adequately discussed in reliable sources (e.g., List of drive-in theatres fits the first one, as it serves to link to Wikipedia pages; List of films released in IMAX fits the second, having been a common topic both the news and in certain filmmaking scholarly circles). This fits neither and as such, violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LISTPURPOSE. Also, fun fact. If you want to keep a list because the information is not anywhere else, then you basically just admitted that the list is not notable. Why? I Ask (talk) 07:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To respond to a few of these points: WP:NOTDIRECTORY lists 6 items articles are not. This list is clearly not 2-5, and doesn't fit the definition of 1. It is not trying to be a simple list of every theater out there, rather a specific subset of the theaters with the unique specifications of each venue cataloged. This provides context to the main IMAX article and valuable information to people interested in these theaters. The specs for 70mm and Laser showings was a topic that was widely discussed amongst theater goers and the media with recent releases such as Oppenheimer and Dune. A list is an ideal format for cataloging and documenting a small number of unique theaters like this. Many of which do actually have dedicated articles or deserve an article, which fits the points in WP:LISTPURPOSE to provide valuable information and be an aggregate to more articles. This article and its predecessor certainly do/did not provide adequate wiki linking or sourcing. This point is very accurate, but is not what it's being deleted for. On the last point, the assertion that the information is not available elsewhere and therefore is not notable is not accurate. This article compiles publicly available data from disparate sources, particularly technical specifications not listed within IMAX's own theater catalog. Specs that most theaters do discuss in press releases and local news. This curation yielded a resource otherwise unavailable and demonstrates value, while also not being WP:NOR as it's all basic information that's already been published. It's more than a simple repeat directory and does have notability. These articles represent efforts by the community to document and catalog their niche for others to learn about and share, and I still fail to see how it has broken rules in a way to merit deletion before improvement. FriendlyToaster (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of the five key principles of Wikipedia is that it is an encyclopedia[1], part of Wikipedia's own definition of an encyclopedia states that "[they provide] summaries of knowledge, either general or special, to a particular field or discipline."[2] My interpretation of this article is a summary of knowledge about IMAX theatres that has been gathered from many different sources meaning that it should be part of an encyclopedia, although admittedly the article needs citing and formatting improvements it should still be part of Wikipedia. additionally this article is similar to other articles such as list of james bond films[3] and if this article isn't considered against Wikipedia guidelines then I don't see why "list of imax venues with 15/70 and laser projectors" is either.Travelling nomad1 (talk) 08:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The term WP:Encyclopedia, like many terms used on Wikipedia, is a term of art, with a meaning that isn't necessarily exactly the definition you would find in a dictionary. The actual pillar (found at WP:5P1) says in part Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias [...]. Wikipedia is not [...] an advertising platform, [...] an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a web directory. This is why people keep linking to WP:NOT, which is the policy which explains all the types of knowledge we don't include. We explicitly recommend that people take such knowledge to other outlets (see Wikipedia:Alternative outlets) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 16:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm familiar with that policy, and I genuinely don't think it applies to this article. I would love to know which of the 6 categories described at WP:NOTDIR people think that this article falls under, because I have re-read it several times and none of them strike me as even remotely describing this article. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 17:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not only is this a clear WP:NOTDIRECTORY fail, but this was created almost immediately when the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of IMAX venues (4th nomination) was due to close. The editor who created this new article had a history of just three edits at the time. It looks like an attempt to circumvent the preceding AfD outcome which had closed as delete. Ajf773 (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly makes this a clear fail? I would say it clearly is an appropriate topic for a list based on WP:SALAT. Yes the original author is fairly new to Wikipedia, but I don't think they're trying to circumvent anything, this is a new list with a more narrowly defined WP:LISTCRIT which takes into account the concerns raised in the previous AfD. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 17:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. WP:USEFUL is not a suitable keep argument here and the venues are not discussed as a group in secondary sources, failing WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NLIST. There is no sourcing discussing these as a group. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bold this is genuinely encyclopaedic content that gathers specific knowledge that is not easily accessible elsewhere. These types of venues are clearly notable as they are discussed at length in the media whenever a new premium format movie is released, and acclaimed directors such as Christopher Nolan and Denis Villenueve have told the best way to experience their work is to find one of these premium venues and watch it there. I think there is a temptation for wikipedia editors who are not film enthusiasts to dismiss this article as not notable or important, but I would caution them to consider the popularity of the cinema hobby before casting such a judgement. There are thousands of lists of less notable special interest venues all across Wikipedia, so it would be a strange injustice to delete this one given the relative mass appeal. 143.58.201.143 (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that WP:BOLD applies here. As you look above different views have already been established.
These types of venues are clearly notable as they are discussed at length in the media
It is helpful if you provide sources when you make statements such as this.
I think there is a temptation for wikipedia editors who are not film enthusiasts to dismiss this article as not notable or important, but I would caution them to consider the popularity of the cinema hobby before casting such a judgement.
The article is being considering inline with notability not film enthusiasm.
There are thousands of lists of less notable special interest venues all across Wikipedia, so it would be a strange injustice to delete this one given the relative mass appeal.
Strange things can happen but it is not a reason to engage in whataboutism. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per JmaJeremy and Travelling nomad 1. This article, as other editors have also mentioned, was created based on a suggestion given for the deletion of "List of IMAX venues," which was to make an article that focuses on a specific subsection of IMAX theatres, as opposed to listing every single one. And this article has done that, being created for specifically 15/70 or laser projection IMAX theatres. An argument for this article's deletion is that there are not enough credible sources. This can be fixed by giving the editors of this article more time to add information and citations. This article is not a directory, as it isn't just a list of venues, rather a collection of tables which provide additional information, such as types of film projectors, screen dimensions, sound system type, aspect ratio, etc. Mjks28 (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So we are just supposed to trust, that this article which was recreated to get around the consensus at the last WP:AFD (as the creator has said at reddit), meats WP:NLIST because there WP:MUSTBESOURCES and we just need to give editors (who don't seem to see a problem with having "information not found anywhere else on the net") a little more time. Now is the time for people wanting to keep the article to find multiple in depth sources to demonstrate this meets WP:NLIST. Also I don't see how your solution to being a directory is to add more unverifiable/synthy information. Presumably we would could therefore have List of Plumbers in New York as long as we added a bunch of other WP:INDISCRIMINATE information in a table format. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of us were not aware of the previous deletion request, but now see how valuable this list is once it was missing. Consider List of airports in Australia, that is far more of a directory than this page is. In fact, this page is based on collecting secondary sources which is the very purpose of wikipedia. Mattximus (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the airports are independently notable, thus it serves as a navigation system for Wikipedia. This is no such type of list. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Very much disagree. Many of these venues are notable, even the flagship IMAXes in their countries or cities, with their own articles and histories and details. For those, it does serve as a navigation system, and prevents orphaned articles. Criticalus (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the articles are about the museums or independently notable theatres that happen to have IMAX. The fact that these places include the format is a non-defining trait for all of these. Most of these pages do not even mention the fact that they have IMAX screens. Very much a bad argument. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTINHERITED is the key policy here. Let'srun (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors are currently finding and citing sources for the venues, I'm just saying that adding sources cannot be done instantly, and that editors will require more time to properly add multiple sources for each venue. Mjks28 (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a very useful list for finding "real" Imaxes, which the official page does not distinguish, and as such based on a compiliation of secondary sources, exactly the purview of wikipedia. It is thus not a directory, but a researched and very handy list. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER so there is no harm in leaving up a page so many of us find useful. Mattximus (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please refer to WP:USEFUL and WP:NOHARM. We need to see WP:N, and so far that has not been provided as it pertains to the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, here is a secondary source [2] that talks about how the specific aspect ratio of some imaxes are the "real thing" and some are not. This information is collected in the same way as any other article of wikipedia. It follows from this one link I provided that there is value in creating a list (not found elsewhere) of these specific types of imaxes. Mattximus (talk) 03:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I applaud the desire to keep Wikipedia within scope, and trim the number of lists generally. However, this particular list is extremely useful to the Wiki in a few ways. It uses secondary sourcing to confirm and augment data that is then used in infoboxes across the mainspace. It also provides vital links connecting various IMAX articles that would otherwise be orphaned. Notability has already been established - IMAX is the most popular large-format theatrical experience globally, it receives significant coverage across many reliable sources, including quality third-party sources like LF Examiner which were dedicated to its coverage, and this list is the connective tissue that makes the many articles surrounding IMAX navigable. Criticalus (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Part of the issue here is these aren't secondary sources. About us, and theatre listings are primary and just confirm they exist, which isn't helpful for notability. Star Mississippi 13:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I rewrote the lead paragraph to provide sourced inclusion criteria from a secondary source as someone above mentioned was needed to ensure the list was not a directory. I hope this is what was meant by the comment. This can of course be improved with further sourcing and better wording but I think this should meet the requirement. Mattximus (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The single source given above would be a good source for the IMAX article (or one on True IMAX), but this is not those articles, and still fails WP:NOTDIR as it still a list of (mostly) non-notable locations, based if they happen to have bought a particular companies projector system. If you want to make an article on 'true IMAX' starting with those sources instead of trying to graft it on to an list that fails WP:NOT more than it does WP:N (although I also think it fails WP:LISTN as well). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting proposition, would you consider a new page called True Imax, which contains this list within it, no longer a directory? I strongly disagree that it is just a directory as the rarity of these projectors is notable itself. But this may be an interesting compromise. Mattximus (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    could we even rename this page and add the extra information while retaining the list? Travelling nomad1 (talk) 08:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it would still be a directory (of mostly non-notable locations that happen to have a particular service) whether the title had the word list in it. Just to make it clear when we use the term WP:NOTABILITY on Wikipedia we are (almost always) referring to WP:GNG, not what individual editor think is WP:IMPORTANT or rare. My suggestion was to take these sources which discuss the topic as a whole, and the information already in IMAX, and create a prose article on it based on those sources (in a way that complies with WP:N and WP:PROPORTION). It may then be appropriate to include a list of notable venues as example (that is to say, have articles, or are very likely have articles) but I highly doubt most of these would make the cut. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTDATABASE apply to this article, as well as the group not meeting WP:LISTN. The article is just a list of mostly non-notable theaters and they are not discussed together as a group. WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:MUSTBESOURCES are not great arguments, and canvassing on Reddit doesn't look great either. Wikipedia is WP:NOTWEBHOST and there are plenty of other places available to hold random lists. Plenty of places have an IMAX theater, it's not some grand revelation whether they do or not. Also seems like a way to just try and get around the previous deletion of List of IMAX theaters (it's even a redirect to the page). StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    these theatres are notable in themselves for having this rare projection equipment out of the hundreds of thousands of theatres and thousands of IMAX theatres only a small number have this rare and advanced equipment, equipment that has been lengthily discussed in the media and among cinema-goers in recent months with the release of Oppenheimer and Dune part 2. Does that not make these cinemas notable? Travelling nomad1 (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be worth trying to create articles on more of the entries in this list. Garuda3 (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do really think most of these venues would meet WP:N. A reminder that notability is NOTINHERITED on the basis that something provides a rare services but on the basis of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (WP:GNG) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fancruft meets Listcruft. Wikipedia is not a directory, this list needs to pass NLIST, nothing found in the article or in BEFORE that show this has been discussed as a group. Nothing in the article indicates it serves a navigation purpose. No sources found in the above Keep fanspam and the canvassing is obvious.  // Timothy :: talk  17:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia#
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_James_Bond_films#Non-Eon_films

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTDATABASE too. In short, Wikipedia is not Tripadvisor. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you specify which part of WP:NOTDIRECTORY this falls under? It seems to pass the list, in the same way list of airports would pass. This is not a list of IMAXes which I agree would just be a directory, it's a list of a specific, rare kind of projector that many secondary sources call "True IMAX", many of the items on the list are indeed links to significant venues. Since WP:NOTPAPER what is the harm in keeping this list as it grows to become more connected and the venues get their own pages? What's the rush to delete? Every day it's up it helps more people. Mattximus (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep When I think of an 'encyclopedic' listing, I think of a focused listing. I believe the point of this list article is to list the 'authentic' Imax venues. But it covers all of the various non-2K Imax venues. It then becomes more or less an almanac or directory listing. Would it be improved by splitting into 70mm film venues and another directed at Laser venues? The 70mm could include closed theatres to improve its 'encyclopedic' value? I do think this list is useful as is, that's why I lean to keep. I leave it to the authors to improve this listing to be more encyclopedic. A 70mm listing could more or less be an article on the 70mm film format. I'm not sure about the laser venues. And some of the other odd format or screen information. IMAX formats are, I think, notable, but certainly not every venue. Alaney2k (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The related deletion discussion (it was disussed as a point of comparison in the above reddit post), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of premium large format cinema screens in the UK, was just closed as delete. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 21:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NLIST states: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. There is little to no coverage of "IMAX venues with 15/70 or laser projection". This differs from "IMAX 15/70 projection" or "IMAX laser projection"; while there may be significant coverage of those systems, there isn't coverage of the theaters using those systems as a group. The only source provided here as secondary coverage (diff) focuses only on 70mm film systems, not the broader group (a new, separate list of only 70mm locations might be fine – see here, here, here, etc. for coverage). Regarding comments that this list doesn't match the examples at WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY, those are only examples (WP:NOTEVERYTHING: The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive); the point is that Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists and that being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The previous article shouldn't have been deleted. I'm shocked it was done so cavalierly. To wit: The AfD nomination cited WP:NOTDIRECTORY but as several people already pointed out, the article didn't match the WP:NOTDIRECTORY description in letter or in spirit (it wasn't a list of links to theater websites, phone numbers, or addresses), rather it contained relevant technical information (projector types, aspect ratios, screen dimensions), along with definitions and sources. The AfD nomination then referenced WP:USEFUL but conveniently left out the part about "in a vacuum" (more on that point below). So with both of the AfD arguments being mooted, the nomination itself was moot. But of the 8 delete votes, we find a collection of problems: 6 repeated the WP:NOTDIRECTORY fallacy, 4 were basically "per nom" votes, 3 clearly misunderstood the article (they thought it included digital "LieMax" venues), and 1 claimed the IMAX website itself had better information than the list (which is laughable and false). The previous AfD wasn't a discussion, it was a railroading. With 8 simple votes, the AfD speedily removed an article that was (1) useful, (2) popular, (3) notable, (4) had technical merit, and (5) included multiple sources -- all of which was discussed in the three previous attempts to remove it. While it's true that any one of those characteristics on its own ("in a vacuum") might not be enough to keep an article, if an article has *all* of those qualities, you need to have a much stronger case for removal. Beating the vague WP:NOTDIRECTORY drum over and over again (or making other dubious arguments and weak claims) isn't enough to overcome the actual value of a good article. If nothing else, the list of IMAX venues (both previous and current iterations) provides readers with real insight and clarity in the face of the IMAX corporation's deliberate obfuscation. But the content of the article is more than that -- it's how a good Wikipedia article is supposed to be written. The removal of the previous article was a mistake based on weak arguments and no real discussion. The current article should stay because it's a good, quality article (see items 1 through 5 above) and there's no actual good reason to remove it, just weak arguments repeated over and over.Jonovitch (talk) 06:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to have time respond to your entire wall of text but, The AfD nomination then referenced WP:USEFUL but conveniently left out the part about "in a vacuum" (more on that point below) in turn ignores the following sentence which explains This way, other editors can judge whether it's useful and encyclopedic according to Wikipedia's policies. In your comment I see no refences to how the policies support your position. instead you gave points which by-and-large are WP:ATA: (1) WP:USEFUL, (2) WP:POPULAR, (3) WP:JUSTNOTABLE, (4) WP:ASSERTN, and (5) WP:MUSTBESOURCES (reminder we want reliable, published sources about the group be, which none of the ones currently in the article are).
  • As far as your dislike of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, I recommend you read RunningTiger123's explanation above. I also note you didn't respond to the WP:NOTDATABASE which says: To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will take the time to respond; I think a clear and thorough discussion is important, especially when countering so many points.
I read the explanation above. He says "those are only examples" but then fails to explain how this article counts as WP:NOTDIRECTORY -- others made the same empty claim in this and the previous AfD discussion. But the article doesn't fit the common definition of a directory, it doesn't fit any of the listed examples in WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and repeating the claim without backing it up with an explanation doesn't make it so. That's why the previous deletion was so surprising and wrong -- it was flawed from top to bottom:
  • The nomination claimed it's a case of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but didn't back it up with any explanation why, which goes against WP:AFDFORMAT: "explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy."
  • The 1st vote repeated the claim with no explanation, which is WP:JUSTAPOLICY, then claimed the IMAX website is more useful and more accurate (which is false and false, as they publish very little technical information).
  • The 2nd vote was just barely more than WP:JUSTAPOLICY.
  • The 3rd vote was WP:PERNOM.
  • The 4th vote was also basically WP:PERNOM, with a follow-up comment referring to digital LieMAX, which wasn't even part of the article ("tell me you didn't read the article without telling me...").
  • The 5th vote was WP:JUSTAPOLICY plus another reference to digital LieMAX (irrelevant to the article).
  • The 6th vote was an impressive combo of WP:PERNOM and WP:JUSTAPOLICY.
  • The 7th comment was the only one that contained actual, helpful discussion.
  • The 8th vote was another impressive combo of WP:PERNOM and WP:JUSTAPOLICY.
  • The 9th vote takes the cake: a trifecta of WP:PERNOM and WP:JUSTAPOLICY *and* an irrelevant reference to digital LieMAX theaters.
There was no good basis for deleting the previous article; it was decided by a series of flawed votes and almost no discussion, which is against WP:AFDFORMAT: "The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments."
You're right that WP:NOTDATABASE says, "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." This article passes all of those tests. The article's intro paragraphs provide context for the data in the list, complete with explanations and independent sources. Thank you for pointing that out.
So what should an article be? From WP:N, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." IMAX 15/70 film theaters have been notable, by any definition, for decades, and in the last year have only become more so (e.g., due to Oppenheimer and Dune 2) because of their technical superiority to regular theaters, immense size, unique aspect ratio, and rarity (BTW, this fixes WP:JUSTNOTABLE) -- as pointed out in countless news stories across the globe (BTW, this isn't WP:ASSERTN -- do I really need to google it for you?). The newer GT-format laser variations (with 1.43:1 aspect ratio) are also notable for the same reasons. All citations in the article are from verifiable sources, some are news articles independent of theater websites (which are sometimes a necessary source of data), and only a very small handful are from the IMAX corporate website. BTW, this isn't WP:MUSTBESOURCES, as you tried to claim earlier -- there *are* plenty of articles about 15/70 and GT-format laser theaters. On the contrary, your argument sounds more like it goes against WP:NEXIST. This current article has some sources cited, and editors will continue to add more -- there are plenty in existence to choose from.
It seems that most people agree 15/70 film and GT laser are notable and should be in a list -- especially since they are discussed in (and linked from) the main IMAX article. And everyone seems to agree that digital LieMAX theaters aren't notable and don't belong in a list (and have never been included in the article, an exclusion pointed out clearly in the article's intro paragraph). The argument seems to come down to the "IMAX with Laser" theaters, which are better than digital LieMAX but not as notable as the 15/70 and GT laser versions. We could have a discussion whether to remove "IMAX with Laser" theaters from the list (especially as they become more ubiquitous if/when digital LieMAX theaters start to upgrade to laser), but that is certainly not grounds for deleting the entire article.
Note: the many flavors of "IMAX" along with the IMAX corporation's refusal to clarify the differences is what leads to a lot of confusion, and that is exactly why this article is so useful: to help moviegoers understand the differences and see exactly why one flavor of IMAX is superior to the others. BTW, this passes the WP:USEFUL test: "a cogent argument must be more specific: who is the content useful for, and why?" And it passes the WP:LISTPURP test under Information: "The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list." It should also be noted this is not a case of WP:TDLI -- IMAX corporation isn't trying to suppress this kind of information, they're just not publishing it themselves.
To summarize: (1) No evidence has been provided to support the claims of WP:NOTDIRECTORY or WP:NOTDATABASE (which goes against WP:AFDFORMAT), and plenty of people have countered those empty claims with solid rebuttals. (2) The previous article was deleted based on flawed WP:PERNOM and WP:JUSTAPOLICY votes (which also goes against WP:AFDFORMAT) combined with irrelevant references to things that weren't even in the article. (3) This current article passes the tests of WP:N, WP:LISTPURP, and WP:USEFUL as outlined above. I recommend we close this discussion as Keep, spend our energy instead on improving the list and sources, and not keep trying to delete a clearly notable, purposeful, useful article. Jonovitch (talk) 06:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely agree with this argument, although for now, single laser venues are notable in my opinion. as older digital venues upgrade it is likely that they won't be notable anymore and when that time comes the article will need to be majorly updated but for now I believe that single laser venues remain notable.Travelling nomad1 (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is starting to turn into a Gish gallop, so I won't go into every one of these points, but mentioning the previous deletion is entirely irrelevant and this is the wrong venue to relitigate that close. If you think the close was incorrect and meets the criteria at WP:DRVPURPOSE, take it to deletion review (though I strongly suspect it would be upheld – since consensus was clear, there was no need for exhaustive discussion). Otherwise, we should focus on this article only. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apology, I wasn't trying to litigate the previous deletion so much as illustrate that the previous and current nominations both went against WP:AFDFORMAT, which says, "explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy." There have been lots of claims of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but nobody has explained how the article violates that policy, even after multiple requests for an explanation, only restating the claim, which is a bad argument per WP:JUSTAPOLICY. On the other hand, many comments above have explained how the article doesn't violate that policy. Jonovitch (talk) 04:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: how long do AfD discussions last?Travelling nomad1 (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It usually lasts for seven days. However, this discussion was relisted above so it will be opened for a longer period of time. Jolly1253 (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The editor who removed the speedy deletion tag claimed that "this new page does not seek to reverse the deletion of the old one, this article seeks to address the concerns with the old page and create a new one that meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion." How can it address any concerns when it is exactly the same article with a different title?
This new article has the same problem as the old one, namely a woeful lack of sources. It's largely a cobbled together mishmash of guesswork and original research. If it was to be submitted for a new page review, it would immediately be rejected.
For example, one of the additions made to the old article had an edit summary of "I emailed the manager". Why would that be necessary if the information was available elsewhere? The simple truth is that this article will never be adequately sourced because the majority of the information isn't readily available; a fact that has been admitted by several of the commentators above:
"This is crucial information that is not easily available elsewhere."
"Technical information, that is also not available anywhere else (including IMAXs own website)."
"The primary reasons for deleting the previous article were claims that the same information already exists online (it doesn’t yet)"
"This curation yielded a resource otherwise unavailable"
"gathers specific knowledge that is not easily accessible elsewhere"
Furthermore, of the few sources which have been added to the article, many are inadequate and you don't have to trawl very far to spot this. Take the first five sourced entries under the "Digital Projector" column, which share two sources. Neither of these sources detail the exact type of projector system in use, only that they have laser projection. So those three mentions of "IMAX CoLa" remain unsourced.
I believe the article should be deleted, but at a minimum it needs to be moved to draft and be properly sourced before it is moved back to mainspace. And by properly sourced, I mean every entry, including all those projector types, aspect ratios and screen dimensions. I predict the editors braying to keep the article will soon realise the impossibility of the task. Barry Wom (talk) 14:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read "woeful lack of sources" and then looked and saw 343 references. Yes, they're not all journalistic sources and some are repeats, but 343 is a lot more than zero.
Also, it sounds like some of the quoted comments are deliberately misinterpreted -- "not available anywhere else" is colloquial shorthand/hyperbole for "the information might be out there if you know where to look, but it's hard to find and not all in one place."
That said, there are a couple valid points here. Emailing the manager may be a good way to get information, but it's not a valid source by Wikipedia's standards. It is harder to find journalistic sources for "IMAX with Laser" theaters, and IMAX corporation doesn't like to publish technical specifications, so I think that's one of the main challenges of including the "IMAX with Laser" multiplex theaters in this list. But it's not an impossible task.
We shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Should we refine and improve this article? Definitely. Should we delete the whole thing because parts of it have flaws? Definitely not. That might be the fastest solution, but it's not actually helpful. Jonovitch (talk) 05:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A significant proportion of those 343 references are simple links to theater websites, but if you insist, I'll do some further trawling.
There are 385 theaters in the list. The "Digital Projection" column has sources for 49 of those. By my count, 12 of those sources are invalid because they do not specify the projector type. A further is a link to a blog. So 36/385 are properly sourced (9%).
Screen dimensions: 27/385 (7%).
Screen Aspect ratio: 1/385 (0.3%)
Both Maximum AR for digital projection and Maximum AR for film projection: zero sources.
It is harder to find journalistic sources for "IMAX with Laser" theaters, and IMAX corporation doesn't like to publish technical specifications.
If it's hard to find journalistic sources, and neither the IMAX corporation nor the theaters themselves publish technical information, then from where do you suggest the sources are going to come? To pick a single random example, how do we confirm that the TGV Sunway Velocity in Kuala Lumpur has a CoLa projector? Barry Wom (talk) 10:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you missed it. I was trying to agree with you on this point. I do think it's a harder argument to include the list of "IMAX with Laser" locations, in part for the reasons you stated. Could they be moved to a separate section? I think so. Should they be removed? Maybe. Should the rest of the list/article be deleted from Wikipedia? No, in part (but not only) because there are more sources more readily available. Jonovitch (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep. I came here to close this (which would have been a no-consensus close), but I find that it would be more productive to provide an opinion on the matter. Clearly the list needs sourcing, but if it were in fact reduced to those entries that 1) have or clearly should have articles, and 2) are sourced, that by itself would be adequate to support having a list, and demonstrating the notability of the subject as a group. BD2412 T 01:20, 22 May 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_IMAX_venues_With_15/70_or_laser_projectors&oldid=1225730204"