Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Galaxy Cinemas theatres

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. The arugments in favour of delete highlighted a lack of encyclopaedic value for a list of this type, combined with policy based reasoning (WP:DIRECTORY, WP:ADVERTISING). Seraphim♥Whipp 14:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Galaxy Cinemas theatres

Listcruft, no sources at all, not able to verify, not notable. There's really no use for this list on Wikipedia at all. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect – Why can’t we make a subpage page on Cineplex Entertainment main page and just merge this list to the subpage? It makes sense to me in that if an individual is looking for Cineplex they may also want to know how many theaters they operate and the location of the theaters. Just a thought. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are verifiable sources for this list, they just need to be added. Creativity-II (talk) 08:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The verifiable source is located in the link at the top. I also added the entries myself. Also, if we remove this list, then any list of cinemas - from Famous Players to Singapore to Thailand - will have to be deleted. So Perhaps merge it with LIst of Famous Players and Cineplex Odeon under one "List of Locations for Cineplex Entertainment Theaters, by Brand"? AllanVS (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I fail to see the inherent notability or need for any list of cinemas, or any other lengthy list of a type or brand of businesses, at least as a stand-alone article. (Shorter lists might be OK as part of the main article about the subject.) If there are other such lists on Wikipedia now, I think they should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a directory. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - so should List of fast food restaurants Be removed as well t hen? It's a list, but again, it's unnoteable, and unverifiable technically speaking. Also, perhaps, List of Toronto subway and RT stations should be removed? The only proof that they exisit is people put them there. So if these lists are 'unnoteable' then 99% of all lists are 'unnoteable' AllanVS (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, in my opinion, they are not notable in the vast majority of cases. List of fast food restaurants should stay, because it refers to companies, not individual locations. Subway/train/transit stations? Yes, they should go if I had my way, but I don't in that case. (And I'm a railroad buff.) But there is nothing inherently notable about lists of individual locations for chains of any kind of business. By comparison, should we have a list of all locations for McDonald's? Or Tim Hortons? (Mmmm...Timbits.) You can see how things can get out of hand pretty easily. Moreover, why should we have a separate article with a list of a particular business, when a link to that business' web site, placed in the main article about that business, would supply that exact same information? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This sort of article is advertising. The place for the information is on the chain's web page--that's one of the prime reasons the company maintains a web presence. They can do it better than we can, and its more appropriate. there's nothing encyclopedic about a list of individual branches of a chain, movies, restaurants, or whatever. We normally delete them all. The lists of fast food restaurants in a chain are always deleted, and such content usually removedgfrom articles on the chain as well. If you see any that have excaped us so far, please nominate them for afd--or even prod. DGG (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per DGG. Also, the items in the list are unlikely to ever be articles themselves, so there's no potential navigation purpose to this list; and it's a violation of WP:DIRECTORY which Wikipedia Is Not. Lists of train stations and even subway stations have an encyclopedic use for readers interested in railroads, transportation, local history and other topics, as you can often see by clicking on the links to individual stations (and the "What links here" link at individual station articles). Lists for newspaper chains have a similar broad interest. Where is the broad interest in a cinema chain list? What encyclopedic purpose would it serve that would be different from a directory? A list embedded in an article about the chain could be justified, perhaps, as information that helps the reader better understand that chain. But not when you reach the size of this list combined with the other two lists for other divisions of Cineplex Entertainment. Editors who worked on this list might want to consider the approach taken in Cinema in Delhi, where the history and interesting features of some of the movie theaters is described. I'm not suggesting that anyone try to do the exact same thing with cinema in, say, Vancouver, but it's the kind of cinema-related article that can be done and can survive AfD (it did), and I suspect it was more interesting to research and write. Just a suggestion. Noroton (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ottawa-Gatineau cinemas is a Canadian list of cinemas that gives descriptions, history and doesn't look like advertising. Noroton (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - On the surface, this article looks slightly better than List of Famous Players theatres (for which I also advocated deletion), because it has "sources." However, the sources appear to be all from one place, and they look like self-published research, which doesn't really fit WP:RS to me. (No opinion is implied on whether or not there is also any connection to the author of the articles.) This is mainly advertising, which is one of the many things Wikipedia is not. Frank | talk 12:00, 22 June 2008 (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.