Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of theatres in Mumbai


 * 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 of the debate was keep.  Rob e  rt  T 01:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

List of theatres in Mumbai
Redlink infected Listcruft. This is like creating List of theatres in Miami Delete --JAranda &#124; watz sup 00:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * keep, readers should be able to find articles about theatres in Mumbai, Miami or wherever. Kappa 01:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not the yellow pages and a list like this is just begging for a whole series of nn articles to be created. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Zoe, and per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: "[C]urrent consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not... [l]ists or repositories of loosely associated topics." Edwardian 06:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think otherwise. A 'list of theatres' is far from "indiscriminate pieces of information". The mentioned theatres are present, can be defined, the number is finite, and references can certainly be provided. In no certain terms this can be called as a "loosely associated topic" =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Every house and every person on my block is present, can be definied, is finite, and references can be provided. Should I write an article listing all of them?  User:Zoe|(talk) 08:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The theatres in question are certainly more notable than houses in a block. Why would a list of theatres not be notable? Some have a long history behind them and are often used as landmarks in the city. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  09:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Nowhere have I discussed deleting the articles, merely this indiscriminate list of every single theatre in Mumbai. User:Zoe|(talk) 09:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Why is this list "indiscriminate"? An an indiscriminate collection of information would be a subjective list whereas this is objective. From Lists (stand-alone lists), the text mentions: "...The list usually consist of links to articles in a particular subject area, such as people or places or a timeline of events." From What is a featured list: 2.1: "Useful: Covers a topic that lends itself to list format by bringing together a group of related articles that are likely to be of interest to a user researching that topic". Nowhere is it mentioned that a collection of closely related data cannot exist on wikipedia, if the data itself is notable. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  10:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep – I don't see why this has to be deleted. Yellow pages deal with addresses and telephone numbers. This list does not promote any of the theatres. What Wikipedia is not does not mention that lists of notable places is non-encyclopedic. Redlinks does not necessarily mean that it is cruft. Please have a look at the wikipedia logo, its an incomplete jigsaw puzzle. Besides, there are quite a few blue links. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Most of the blue links go to completely unrelated articles. There are four actual bluelinks, of which one is a subsubsubstub. The other three are well-written and arguably notable historic buildings. So we need a Category: Theatres in Mumbai for the notable ones. Not a list of every single theatre in the city. FCYTravis 10:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * In that case would you also list the following for AFD: New York City hotels, List of New York City gardens, List of New York City gardens, List of schools in Louisville, and numerous other such lists that are linked from city articles? I think this would be fair.  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  11:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is ridiculous. If we need to find articles about *notable* theatres in Miami or Mumbai, that's what the Category system is for. Historic and notable theatres like Paramount Theater will get articles. The Century 10Plex down the street, won't because they don't need them. FCYTravis 10:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you saying some of the theatres in that list are non-notable? Theatres serve as landmarks here. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  11:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - because it's about cinemas, not theatres. Theatres are notable landmarks and could be in the list. Some major cinemas are landmarks too, but not some small corner ones. Renata3 14:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: In some forms of English the word theatre can also refer to cinemas. - Mgm|(talk) 14:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * So the article name suggests exatly that. But it list ONLY cinemas, and I don't think there is a need of list for cinemas in various cities. And somehow I don't feel the list is complete anyways. Renata3 14:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * A cinema and a theatre is often the same thing in Indian English. An incomplete list is not a criteria for deletion. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  17:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I am removing my vote with big hopes that Nichalp will finish off the rewrite. Renata3 05:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Will do when time permits. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  11:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename to List of movie theaters in Mumbai and keep. Films are incredibly popular in India and red links promote article creation on the topic of the cinemas which are no doubt notable when India is concerned. Redlinks cannot be categorized and including them in the cateogry would mess up it's alphabetized format. Lists and categories server different purposes. - Mgm|(talk) 14:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but delink any theatres that are unlikely to ever deserve articles. - SimonP 14:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not encyclopedic. - Dalbury (talk) 14:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikitravel and delete. This is exactly what Wikitravel is for, and what Wikipedia is not for. --Angr/undefined 15:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Please mention which criteria under WP:NOT does this list violate. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  17:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per FCYTravis. Whatever few notable theaters there are should be in a suitable category. —Cleared as filed. 15:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I think that we know how popular films are in India, and Mumbai is the capital of India. Considering just how many movie theatres there are, that in itself makes it worthy.  In most cities, you struggle to get 3 or 4 movie theatres.  I think it says a lot about the culture of Mumbai by allowing such a list. 203.122.218.47 15:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Mumbai is not the capital of India, even if it is one of the major cities. 131.111.8.102 16:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment – Theatres/Cinemas in Mumbai are not small corner establishments. Mumbai is the centre of Bollywood and theatres/cinemas have been around since the early 20th century. Theatres/Cinemas cater to mostly the Hindi, English and Marathi audience. I think there's definately a systemic bias against having such a list here where western definations are applied to determine notability. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  17:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I suppose there is precedent with List of shopping malls in Singapore, List of London venues, List of buildings in Bucharest etc and all the other things on Category:Lists of structures. - Xed 18:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per FCYTravis. While recognizing the popularity of films in India, I don't see why we need a list of cinemas in Mumbai in Wikipedia. Regarding systemic bias, I would also vote to delete a list of cinemas in New York or Los Angeles if such articles were created; most individual cinemas are not notable, so a redlinked list of them would not be particularly useful. --Metropolitan90 18:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as per NichalP. These are important cultural centers, many of which deserve their own articles (and already have them).  What's wrong with listing them together in one place?  --Dvyost 19:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, useful list, plus article establishes notability (Mumbai is usually associated with films). &mdash; J I P | Talk 19:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, though possibly many do not deserve links. Still, this is about a city where cinemas (which, as I understand that are known there as theatres, and we should be using the locally appropriate form of English) are major centers (centres, I suppose) of the local culture; I suspect that many of these are effectively the defining points of neighborhoods. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep See Category:Lists_of_structures --Despentes 20:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep useful list. Mumbai is a very big city. Carina22 21:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * So is New York City, but I would vote to delete List of theaters in New York City, too. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. per jmabel. -- WB 22:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep passes millions of people test. Klonimus 23:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lists (stand-alone lists). Also, helps WP:CSB. Jacqui  ★ 00:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ambi 02:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. As has been mentioned above they serve as landmarks in the city. Tintin 03:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete So do supermarkets, bus stops, and playgrounds. If any of these theatres merit encyclopedic coverage, by all means give them an article; this is just a list of neighborhood cinemas. D e nni &#9775; 03:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * From Landmark: In modern usage, it is anything that is easily recognisable, such as a monument, building, or other structure. In American English it is the main term used to designate places that might be of interest to tourists - the closest equivalent to visitor attraction in British English. In British English the term is less used and only refers to things that are truly visible due to their height or size. Examples of landmarks include the Taj Mahal in Agra, Eiffel Tower in Paris, Big Ben in London, Mount Fuji in Japan, Stone Mountain near Atlanta and the CN Tower in Toronto. I don't think any of your examples qualify as a landmark. Still, in a country where film is extremely popular and in the center of Bollywood it would be useful to list cinemas even if they're not landmarks. They get a lot more varied and often larger audience than schools. -- Mgm|(talk) 09:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This is a non-promotional, informational, notable article and in no way meets WP:DP. These are an important part of an important city, moreover the film city of India. Many of these cinemas are well known and deserve articles of their own, even if they don't have them.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91  ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  03:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability comes from their importance in the Indian context. Ways shall be found to keep the list organised and informational. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 05:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, cinemas and theatres are important part of culture. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, certainly. Charles Matthews 11:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, not the same at all as a list of Miami theaters. Two completely different cultures. Turnstep 02:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep for suspicion of systemic bias - definitely notable Sam Vimes 22:10, 15 November 2005 (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.