Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dolby Cinema venues


 * 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. As noted below, this should have been closed as delete to begin with. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

List of Dolby Cinema venues

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a directory. None of the cinemas have articles and should be considered non notable until proven otherwhise. Dolby accreditation is hardly a distinct criteria for a list of cinemas Ajf773 (talk) 09:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I would like to know what the difference is with the List of IMAX venues article?

The main difference I see is that some of the IMAX theaters have a wiki page. Also, most of the towns have a link.

Why should there be a "directory" of IMAX theaters and not one of Dolby cinema?

--Wvdp (talk) 11:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'd agree that the List of IMAX venues should be nominated for deletion as well. It survived an AfD back in 2005, but if nominated again today it probably wouldn't survive. Ajf773 (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 11:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: this is not really a list but a linkfarm. --Randykitty (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

This whole debate seems nonsensical. What is the ultimate purpose of wikipedia if not to provide information people are looking for? Dolby Cinema and IMAX are both venues that are only important when they list locations and films. Without either, one won't know how the product exists in real life. Apple's Wikipedia lists all it's products and history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California Lists all of its locations for schools, including sports team information, capacity, etc. A page on UC Schools without a list of schools and links to information would be pointless. It would only discuss the concept of the school. People go to Wikipedia to find specific information, not just vague ideas. Seriously, IMAX has had this information for years and it has been good with users and editors for more than a DECADE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Defaultfresh (talk • contribs) 19:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Defaultfresh has not edited any articles beyond Dolby Cinema. There are policies that need to be adhered to, in this instance WP:NOT, and that topics or content are presented in an encyclopedic format. Ajf773 (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The idea that because I have mostly only contributed to one page is like comparing someone writing a research paper about marine biology. I have valid information and concerns about a particular top and do in fact follow reddit guidelines. At this point you should call a moderator to arbitrate the situation because there is not even an idea put fourth of compromise which is also within the guideline of consensus (again following reddit's guidelines for dispute). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Defaultfresh (talk • contribs) 19:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

One does not consult and automobile association about a failing engine in a specific car, they consult a car mechanic, who is better researched in fixing cars. They both might have an understanding of rules, but only the mechanic can solve the car problem with respect to the association's laws. That is why greater bodies of people wouldn't waste their time on one persons engine. The editors of this article are like several car mechanics. Again call the mods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Defaultfresh (talk • contribs) 20:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't how your reasoning is of any relevance to this discussion, but this recent edit by a single purpose user (and possible sockpuppet),, certainly isn't going to help your cause. Ajf773 (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

What's a sockpuppet? An insult?

By the way, I don't know how to sign

Is it Defaultfresh (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)defaultfresh


 * Delete as a linkfarm and a directory (they're not mutually exclusive). Clarityfiend (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete – This list serves solely as a directory of theaters that utilize or feature elements of Dolby Cinema. While that may be useful in some respects, it doesn't need to exist in an encyclopedia. And although it's not a primary factor in this decision, the list does duplicate information already listed at Dolby Cinema Locations on the main Dolby website. Consider posting a link instead to that web page in the "External links" section of the Dolby Cinema article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - this should have been closed as "delete", not re-listed. Linkfarm as noted above.  If this were a list of notable theaters whose notability had something to do with Dolby capabilities the outcome could be different.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 16:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree., could you enlighten us on why you relisted this? --Randykitty (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I could only re-list as I'm not an admin. I relisted in order to get the attention of an admin. Kirbanzo (talk)
 * Thank you . If an AfD discussion is not closed for a lengthy period of time, it will be conspicuous at WP:AFD.  I came here to close the discussion as "delete", but was prevented from doing so because you had just re-listed it.  Non-admins can re-list a discussion where consensus is still developing, but where consensus is clearly "delete" you can just wait a bit and an admin will close.  No harm, no foul, there's no great harm in this list existing for another week.  I truly hope this comes across as helpful advice, and not grumpy criticism.  Your contributions here are indeed appreciated.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 17:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.