List of IMAX venues With 15/70 or laser projectors : 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 ] Comment article now moved to List of IMAX venues with 15/70 or laser projectors .  I would suggest a pause in moving this any further until the AfD closes (in either direction) Star Mississippi 03:14, 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 ] Comment : This discussion is mentioned off-wiki here and here , so might be expecting some editors that are being canvassed here.  Jolly1253 ( talk ) 04:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would recommend anybody coming here to sign on up and vote it down to Keep as somebody in the fist link says reads WP:CANVASING , WP:NOTAVOTE and WP:MEATPUPPET Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:34, 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 ] What about this [3] .  Mattximus ( talk ) 22:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Travelling Nomad.  Urbanracer34 ( talk ) 18:11, 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 [4] 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 ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia# ^ 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 (

Discussion outcome: delete