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. There's a clear lack of community agreement over whether this crosses the line of being an unencyclopedic list of places. Further discussion as to inclusion criteria in the article may lead to a more informed decision in future. ~
mazcatalk18:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)reply
WP:NOTDIR. Very few of these entries would be eligible for articles or parts of articles. The central keep rationale of the previous two discussions was apparently "there are very few of them around", but this is clearly no longer the case! –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄)
21:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. Useful and notable. A couple dozen have articles. Inclusion criteria can be adjusted. The Dolby article contained mainly redlinks. wumbolo^^^13:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep this is clearly a very useful list to the public as the page views show an average of 1700 views a day and the category with 94 entries shows it is in a large part notable
Atlantic306 (
talk)
20:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete- Clear violation of
WP:NOTDIR, we already have an appropriate category for this. With few exceptions, most of these are just movie theaters that are not otherwise notable.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
03:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)reply
WP:POPULARPAGE says popularity may be linked to notability and if we shouldnt mention page views why are they linked at the top of every afd discussion, theyve certainly been quoted a lot at the portals rfc, thanks
Atlantic306 (
talk)
15:13, 16 May 2018 (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 no consensus. There's a clear lack of community agreement over whether this crosses the line of being an unencyclopedic list of places. Further discussion as to inclusion criteria in the article may lead to a more informed decision in future. ~
mazcatalk18:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)reply
WP:NOTDIR. Very few of these entries would be eligible for articles or parts of articles. The central keep rationale of the previous two discussions was apparently "there are very few of them around", but this is clearly no longer the case! –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄)
21:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. Useful and notable. A couple dozen have articles. Inclusion criteria can be adjusted. The Dolby article contained mainly redlinks. wumbolo^^^13:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep this is clearly a very useful list to the public as the page views show an average of 1700 views a day and the category with 94 entries shows it is in a large part notable
Atlantic306 (
talk)
20:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete- Clear violation of
WP:NOTDIR, we already have an appropriate category for this. With few exceptions, most of these are just movie theaters that are not otherwise notable.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
03:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)reply
WP:POPULARPAGE says popularity may be linked to notability and if we shouldnt mention page views why are they linked at the top of every afd discussion, theyve certainly been quoted a lot at the portals rfc, thanks
Atlantic306 (
talk)
15:13, 16 May 2018 (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.