Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Box Office India (3rd nomination)

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. Randykitty (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Box Office India[edit]

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

No independent, non-trivial coverage in reliable source. Fails subject notability guidelines. It may be noted that WP:USEBYOTHERS is not a criterion of encyclopedic inclusion. Certain reliable-sources have sourced some data to this site. Nothing more and nothing less.~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is another explicit overzealous deletion attempt. WP:NEXIST applies here. Though the nominator knows this website is popular but is trying to get this article deleted merely on the basis of lacking independent sources on the subject. Moreover, this website is used as the source for other articles here. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 15:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may be highly prudential that you read the linked policies you are citing before dishing them out.Anybody, who manages to bring NEXIST on a 21st century Internet-site whilst admitting the veracity of the the deletion rationale as merely on the basis of lacking independent sources on the subject, is probably incompetent to partake in AfDs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winged Blades of Godric (talk • contribs) 16:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It may be widely used, but we need in depth coverage about the subject, not just mentions or references to it. The point of the sources isn't to just say "it's important" but to write an encyclopedia article, and without significant coverage we cannot do so. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Aptly said:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this website is used by Wikipedia as a reliable source for box office takings in thousands of articles that link to it (What links here has an upper limit of 1000 I think) and having an article that explains what it is even if it is just a stub serves a purpose for the reader of a film article who wants to make up his own mind whether the box office takings total is from a reliable source. The page views average 232 a day so that seems to prove that is happening. Regarding rs coverage there is : Times of India (looking for more) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm....We need significant and non-trivial coverage.As to the rest of the arguments, it's a mixture of ILIKEIT and other similar stuff.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If we're not supposed to consider page views why are they provided in the link at the top of every AFD ? Atlantic306 (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reasoning of Atlantic306. The Times of India reference is relatively brief but it explicitly vouches for the significance of this website within the Bollywood industry. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:24, 30 April 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.