Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Number 1 ranked Bollywood Actor of 2014

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 merge to Times Celebex: Bollywood Stars' Rating. MBisanz ^talk 04:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Number 1 ranked Bollywood Actor of 2014[edit]

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

WP: UNDUE coverage of one newspaper's ratings Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This and the other three, they should all have been combined to a single nomination. The Times Celebex ratings have received no traction except in in-house publications of the ToI group and some fansites. Nothing RS except their own coverage of this. —SpacemanSpiff 12:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, it is true that one news paper is publishing the ratings, but it has been calculated on a month-to-month basis and comes from 60+ publications, 250+ TV channels, 10000+ cinema halls and millions of users across the Internet, making it one of the most scientific and comprehensive celebrity ranking system, so please keep the page. So it is eligible as a perfect resource for star ratings. Please check the adequate references added and please remove the deletion nomination. Rajeshbieee (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be all well, but the fact is no one has deemed it worthy of commenting on, and our policies require at least a grain of notability, and in this case there's none, references within the article are nothing more than a regurgitation by the same publishing house. —SpacemanSpiff 04:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Times Celebex: Bollywood Stars' Rating. It does look like sources justify the Times Celebex ranking in general being notable, but there's no reason to spin off into separate articles. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnecessary CONTENTFORK from Times Celebex: Bollywood Stars' Rating, no stand-alone article warranted. Kraxler (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Times Celebex: Bollywood Stars' Rating. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:32, 9 July 2015 (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.