Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 14

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 no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Buckley

Owen Buckley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an English

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Undecided: Sufficient room for expansion, but not enough coverage in current state. Mn1548 (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I was able to find this source, which I think is detailed enough be considered non-trivial, but it's a local media article, so it's pretty borderline. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Transactional announcements such as signings and trades are not considered in-depth sourcing, especially when most of it is in quotes. JTtheOG (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete I lean to delete as not quite meeting notability guidelines but will support the consensus of the group of editors. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:38, 18 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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Bartos

Max Bartos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Only named role is a minor part in a musical which never reached broadway due to COVID. Only SigCov is a single piece interview in local news from 2019. Article created with COI.

No hard feelings to the author who will probably read this, I think they made a good faith to write an article with COI while following Wikipedia's policy, and the quality of the prose and formatting is nice. I hope they consider contributing to other, more notable topics that they do not have a conflict of interest with. BrigadierG (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bands and musicians. BrigadierG (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BrigadierG Appreciate the feedback on drafting. I have added in news sources as there is SigCov in multiple articles from NY Times, local newspaper, and national magazines. Also added context of Max as a producer and director, and more from times during COVID. His role as Darren was a principal role along with the roles of Brendan, Raphina, and Conor. Disclosed COI because it is the right thing to do, but do not believe this merits deletion since the materials are all sourced and accurately cited and quoted. Also added reference to his work with Tali Golergant as she featured on one of the songs on his album and she is now a ESC finalist. I also appreciate the suggestion to edit other articles and will definitely start to do that. I respectfully ask that the page mark for deletion be removed. Lawhawk 13 (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)@Lawhawk 13[reply]

• Delete. I had to reorganize this article to figure out what was going on here. This is a clear case of
  WP:TOOSOON. This young actor appeared in a supporting role in an off-Broadway show that was Broadway-bound but never got to Broadway because of the COVID-19 pandemic. He has not had any significant further theatrical roles. He has produced and directed a couple of amateur shows. He had previously had bit parts in several films in his teens, and a leading role in a YouTube short film, playing Young Shane Dawson, when he was 11. He has released two non-notable albums of folk music and played in bands. Does not pass NACTOR, and most of the refs in the article (certainly the ones in national press) are about the show, not the actor. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per the above, doesn't meet NACTOR yet. Niafied (talk) 04:46, 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.

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 Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giuliano Avaca

Giuliano Avaca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A case of

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, Italy, and Argentina. JTtheOG (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify Probably a case of
  WP:GNG at the moment. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 14 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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muni Mohjit Vijayji

Muni Mohjit Vijayji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Poorly sourced article about a niche religious figure. Only one in-depth reference – a 2003 press article in the Gujarati language (a copyvio scan is on Commons); all the remaining references are at best passing mentions of the subject. The disciples / religious community he left behind doesn't appear too numerous or active, either, at least judging from its Facebook page. All in all, this looks like one of a myriad of gurus found across India at any time who preach to their small following; and not a person with an encyclopaedic notability. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and India. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. Poor and unreliable sources. One or two reliable source do not have coverage to warrant notability. Sources that cover younger generation or an IITian who gave up their career for Jain vow of renunciation does not help either. The religious figure is minor to unknown even in media and simple search on Google. RangersRus (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, Soft Deletion is not an option here due to a previous AFD on this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments. The sourcing is all over the place - some good, some terrible. It's almost enough for
  WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Based on my checking, I found nothing but unreliable sources and some reliable ones that lack the in-depth coverage needed to establish notability. The subject fails to meet
  WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 16:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:24, 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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of recurring Entourage characters

List of recurring Entourage characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Adding together many non-notable topics still gives you a non-notable topic. The individual character articles like

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Entourage is notable, and
  WP:CSC #2 applies to a list of individually NN characters from a notable show or franchise. Jclemens (talk) 06:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails NLIST, nothing found showing this has been discussed as a group by independent reliable sources. fancrufty article, does not serve a nav purpose, fails CLN.
  WP:CSC #2 does not say that a stand alone list is always notable or appropriate.  // Timothy :: talk
   
• Delete: per TimothyBlue. Couldn't find significant coverage per
  WP:BEFORE. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: per TimothyBlue too. This list is fine on Fandom but I cannot see how it deserve a spot on Wikipedia, they are recurring characters after all.
  WP:ATD will be to prune it down and rename it as List of Entourage characters. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• A couple things. First, "adding together many non-notable topics" is one of three
  standard ways to make a list. Second, what's really being asked is whether, in an ideal version of a very long article on Entourage, there would be a listing of recurring characters. If so, using primary sources for basic information isn't a problem and spinning that list out to its own page isn't a problem. Personally, I'm skeptical that such a list would be merited, so probably err on the side of weak delete, but I'm not especially familiar with the show or the sourcing around it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:04, 20 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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bee Ridge, Indiana

Bee Ridge, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This history of the county, from 1909, describes Bee Ridge as "naming a locality, a church and a school." It then goes on at some length concerning the founding of the church, leaving the other two points unaddressed except for the origin of the place's name. I can verify the school, which the topos show as sitting in isolation about 1/3 mile away from the spot they label. But I can find no sign that there was ever a town here, and the history treats it as an area rather than as a specific settlement. I don't think it provides enough info for an article on that area. Mangoe (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dick Johnson Township, Clay County, Indiana. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 23:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Mangoe (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (don't redirect): No information available, so a redirect accomplishes nothing other than stating which township this place was in. Unlikely search term, also. Fails
  WP:GEOLAND if there are no sources other than GNIS and census. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment It is is mentioned in "From Needmore to Prosperity : Hoosier place names in folklore and history[1]". As one of the oldest settlements in the county. Also listed as a town serviced by Taxi, but alot things on this list seem suspect so... [2]. Thoughts?James.folsom (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention that Buchanan corner is not mentioned on that taxi list. James.folsom (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article now refers to Bee Ridge as a locality. There is probably also a ridge nearby named Bee Ridge. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear more opinion about a possible Redirct
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete other than the few things I found, there is nothing to be found. Earliest settlement in the county as claimed could just be a group of farmers, and there is no proof positive of any of the claimed details about the place.James.folsom (talk) 23:02, 17 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Royal Engineers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

29 Armoured Engineer Squadron

29 Armoured Engineer Squadron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination

)

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

In my opinion, the article is not notable. Similiar units almost certainly would not have an article. Only one reference is listed and it is not independent of the topic of the article.. PercyPigUK (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. PercyPigUK (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I was going to vote to redirect this to the parent unit, but I'm really not sure what that unit actually is. It most recently seems to have been part of 35 Engineer Regiment but our article doesn't record that as currently being the case. Anyone know what the most suitable redirect is? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Royal Engineers might be the most suitable option. PercyPigUK (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, two suggested redirect target articles, are either appropriate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Royal Engineers per nominator. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Royal Engineers: The first redirect target 35 Engineer Regiment (EOD&S) (United Kingdom) is same unit under British Army of the Royal Engineer. We usually redirect to nearly search terms and Royal Engineer is the coming here. Good to go. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:39, 18 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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik Karlsson (musicologist)

Henrik Karlsson (musicologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Bands and musicians, and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Probably meets
  WP:AUTHOR, I easily found several reviews of his 2013 book. Quickly added them, though several are paywalled. Geschichte (talk) 09:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. I'd like to see more than one book for
  WP:PROF#C3. It depends on whether it is for music scholarship (likely in his case) or performance (also prestigious but not really academic notability). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Also ping Mscuthbert as our in-house music scholarship expert. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- my sense is that the membership in Royal Swedish Academy of Music would be a
  WP:PROF#C3 qualification (membership in a very rigorously chosen and prestigious academic society). There are four academics (or five if the society director is included) in the list of 177 current members, among 800ish since the founding in the 1770s, suggesting that at least one society considers him among the top handful of music academics in Sweden. I don't personally know his work, but I haven't really studied Swedish music history, which is his specialty. But he is the author of the plurality(? majority?) of the articles on Swedish music in the New Grove 2001 encyclopedia, meaning he had enough reputation by then to be a significant authority. I think that to the extent that the Academy does appoint researchers as members, it is in that capacity an academic institution; the American Academy of Arts and Sciences appoints some non-academic musicians and screen actors as well, but its appointments of academics are considered as WP:PROF#C3. (I was convinced of a Keep before I looked at WP's coverage of Swedish academics in music. A delete here would be 20% of the living people in the category). -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

(And thanks for the Ping David Eppstein!) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it certainly seems that NACADEMIC is met. Niafied (talk) 04:53, 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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Hoberman

John Hoberman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't appear to pass

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Language, History, Sports, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning delete unless better sources can be found. I couldn't find anything independent of Hoberman himself or University of Texas. Cnilep (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning keep -- ugh, this article is a mess, a minefield of BLP and SPA and NOR problems (even the photo!). I won't weep for it if it's deleted. But we do have a full professor at a major research university (usually a good sign of a WP:PROF likely pass) with books by U. Chicago Press and Houghton Mifflin, which is probably enough with any of the controversies to pass WP:AUTHOR. But what a mess. There's the old saying "AfD is not cleanup" but a Soft Delete (=expired PROD, no prejudice against creating again) might be a good way to deal with the major BLP issues. And yet, I think the subject is more likely notable than not. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as NACADEMIC. I did some bold editing, removed promotional stuff, but also added in some academic references. His most controversial book gets over ~1100 cites on G-scholar. It is quite possible that many of those are debunking his thesis, but I believe that still counts toward academic qualifications. Lamona (talk) 05:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I counted 14 reviews of his books (not all the same one) on JSTOR. I think he passes
  WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes both NACADEMIC and NAUTHOR. I stopped counting reviews of his books when I got to 20 for just the first two books I tried, and there is even published back-and-forth about them. Few academics can equal that for two books. Zero^talk 10:10, 15 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Lucas Estevan Soares#Independent Roads. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Roads

Independent Roads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination

)

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

Doesn't meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Seems like a well-viewed film with world-wide exposure, but I can't find a single critical mention of it. Even the Portuguese article uses primary sources or various film festival sites. I tried both the English and Portuguese spellings for the title, nothing comes up. Oaktree b (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also no reviews listed on the Rotten Tomatoes website Oaktree b (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Per Oaktree b. Movie without any repercussions worth an article. Svartner (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Lucas Estevan Soares#Independent Roads: the film has a section -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Lucas Estevan Soares#Independent Roads where it is covered. Not finding reviews or similar coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:53, 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.

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.

List of IMAX venues With 15/70 or laser projectors

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected csp |username}}.

List of IMAX venues With 15/70 or laser projectors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(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]

• 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: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

  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: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

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: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.,
  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: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: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:LISTCRIT which takes into account the concerns raised in the previous AfD. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 17:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete: Wikipedia is
  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: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: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

  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: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: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: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]

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:NOTDATABASE too. In short, Wikipedia is not Tripadvisor. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Can you specify which part of
  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: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 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

  reliable, published sources

  about the group be, which none of the ones currently in the article are).

• As far as your dislike of

  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

  ]

To summarize: (1) No evidence has been provided to support the claims of

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

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: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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pyotr Kosarevsky

Pyotr Kosarevsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable BLP, his career is largely confined to second-level football. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Russia. Owen× ☎ 21:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I am unable to find enough coverage to meet
  WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete -- Nowhere going near
  WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 05:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - minor league, zero goals, poor sourcing. Bearian (talk) 23:52, 20 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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milford Keresoma

Milford Keresoma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a New Zealand rugby union player, to meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A bit of coverage exits on his career, but struggling to see enough for a
  WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete lacks in-depth coverage fails
  WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:27, 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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Bomer

Sally Bomer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

None of the sources provided provide the kind of

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Dance. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Than you for nominating. Doesnt go anywhere near to satisfy
  WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 05:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete This one is an easy call. Does not meet notability guidelines to merit an article. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I found a handful of other mentions of her in the NY Times, but nothing about her. Lamona (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. First off, there is no allegation of notability. Secondly, a few brief mentions in reviews is not enough for
  WP:SIGCOV. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom and above fails
  WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:28, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Sabor line. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lamelas halt

Lamelas halt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination

)

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

Does not appear to be notable (and it has been affirmatively established by sitewide consensus that train stations are not inherently notable). The first source is just an entry in a list, and the second only supports the line the station is on being closed. There is nothing of substance provided about the station itself. Could potentially be redirected to Sabor line. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and Portugal. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Sabor line. No evidence that this stop meets GNG. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  whistle stop. Bearian (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to Sabor line.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:30, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to KASA-TV. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KTEL-CD

KTEL-CD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination

)

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

KUPT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

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

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New Mexico. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  GNG. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to KASA-TV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]