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 Keep — Caknuck 03:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of IMAX venues[edit]

List of IMAX venues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Wikipedia is not a Directory of every single IMAX thatre out there. Since there is already a list of Notable IMAX Theatres on the bottom of the IMAX article I felt that the page I am nominating shouldn't need to be here as it lists all IMAX theatres even though most of them are non notable and is in Violation of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY.Sawblade05 04:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge notable venues (e.g. first and largest per country) not already in parent article and redirect to IMAX. Dbromage 04:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, do not merge If "notable" theaters are merged (assuming it can even be determined that one is more notable than the other), the list on the IMAX page will grow and could call for the creation of a separate article again. What encylopedic purpose does this serve? This is something you expect to find in a tourist pamphlet when you're on vacation. Wikipedia is not a travel guide or a directory. I'm sure we wouldn't have a List of McDonald's restaurants. Also, Category:IMAX venues serves a better purpose for this. Spellcast 07:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This list is grouped in a logical way, the only way to do the same thing with the category is to divide it into dozens of subcats. Kappa 05:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep IMAX cinemas are rare, thus this list should be maintainable, and, I feel, notable. The example of McDonald's restaurants given above is rediculous, as there are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of them worldwide, yet only a few hundred of these. _TheIslander 09:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Because of their rarity, I feel every IMAX theatre is notable, but there simply isn't enough information to warrent an article on each and every one. By consolidating it all into a list, the section detailing specifics about some locations can be completely split off of the main IMAX article, and put someplace with context. The list is definitely maintainable. There isn't IMAXs on every street corner. For those who keep quoting WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, have you even read the entry? The only possibly appliable portion is section 3.

Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, current schedules, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules may be acceptable. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages.

The only thing listed is the general location of the theatre. No specific address, no phone numbers, etc. It is broken out by country, with the exception of the United States. Over all, the list seems quite reasonable considering the limited number across the world. It is a useful list. It is something I can definitely picture people wanting to look up. Anyway, I feel the arguments made so far are incorrect.

Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Such details are, however, very welcome at Wikitravel, but note that due to license incompatibility you cannot copy content wholesale unless you are the copyright holder.

Once again, IMEX, by their rarity, is equivalent to a museum, or landmark. The amount of information given in the list is appropriate, and enough to give a person a basis to do additional research on the subject. It does not replace the phone book. I feel both of these arguments are incorrect, as the information specifically in violation of this policy is not present in the article. Turlo Lomon 12:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the two comments above, I don't think that something being rare is extra grounds for keeping an article. Take Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs featuring a theremin for example. People who insisted on keeping the article emphasised the rarity of the instrument. But why should the fact that something is rare or less common give it extra grounds for an article? Spellcast 15:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what people wanting to keep it emphasised, it seems to me very clear that the reason for deletion, in the end, was that it was a very loosely associated list, which it was. The same certainly cannot be said for this list - to extrapolate the example you cite to this list would mean that this article would have to be titled List of IMAX venues whose screens are exactly X by Y in size, for instance, and that would clearly be nonsense. As it stands, it's fine. _TheIslander 16:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we would agree that a "List of Nike stores" article would be removed. It seems the only reason this list is being treated differently is because IMAX theaters are not as common. Spellcast 19:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - I think this gets to the travel guide level. List of ______ businesses in <city> and almost advertisement for these theaters at a yellow pages level Corpx 16:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- This is plainly a directory of IMAX venues. And lists should only include notable examples of something. Are all of these venues notable enough for their own articles? No. Are most of these venues notable enough for their own articles? No. Most of them are not notable and shouldn't be on any list. Saikokira 19:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 21:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, IMAX is scarce. Mathmo ^Talk 00:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, IMAXes are scarce and notable enough that an overview of the topic can list individual members and remain informative without being overwhelming. Kappa 04:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Kappa. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the low number of IMAX theaters, combined with the general notability of IMAX means all of these venues are notable enough to be included in a list. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is not a directory; a directory would give addresses and phone numbers of the theaters and a list of the movies currently playing. Every time an IMAX theater opens, it tends to attract significant news coverage; this list thus meets the notability guidelines. DHowell 05:34, 9 August 2007 (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.