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

[edit]

[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. 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]
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]
  • 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]

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]
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]
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]
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.
Category