Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Box Office India


 * 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   keep. Article closed as Keep per nominator's withdrawal and no outstanding !votes for deletion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Box Office India

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No inherent notability. The website has received very little coverage from reliable third-party sources. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  10:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Notable-The website is widely used for boxoffice figures for bollywood articles as most reliable source.You can ask with every established user who are frequently editing articles related to Bollywood films.References-Third party sources like reliable newspapers in India has given their own statistics about box office figures so that why they never mention it,They simply do not promote others.I created it and adding exact information what website offers and add all references what i have found to support the claim.Thanx ---zeeyanketu talk to me 16:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 14:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 14:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 14:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 14:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Does this then verifiably fall under WP:USEBYOTHERS?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 16:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt about notability of the website.Trust is for sure. ---zeeyanketu talk to me 17:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Unfortunately, and this may end up being a bit odd, there's a distinction between being a reliable source and being notable. The first is a measure of whether or not a source has a history of quality fact checking (i.e., is it reputable for the information it gives); the second is whether or not the subject (in this case, the website) is "important". Generally, notability is established by showing that the website has been discussed in detail by multiple, independent sources. So far, you haven't quite shown that, zeeyanaktu. The usage of the site by Wikipedia editors doesn't in any way answer the question of whether the website is important enough to have a Wikipedia article on it. On that matter, I'm not certain myself yet. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Honestly,I created it About 2 months ago after seeing Box office Mojo has been used for all Hollywood films.The story is same for Box Office India for Bollywood films.The nominator doubt its notability,So it's reputable as I have seen from long enough.The source's are lightweight but it is mentioned on many websites.Some reason i provided earlier too. ---zeeyanketu  talk to me 08:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep: I can see multiple mentions here --Tito Dutta (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thankx to Tito Dutaa,I provide some links from reliable websites or newspapers where it has been mentioned ,,,,, and . ---zeeyanketu talk to me 08:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Per Zeeyanketu above. The website is notable. I wonder how is this nominated for deletion?!?! I am little bit concerned it passes WP:WEB or no. As the guideline describes, The website should be subject of non-trivial published sources, the sources aren't the subject of the article. It's used as a reference in sources. &mdash; Forgot to put name (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep this is as notable as Box Office Mojo, etc. LenaLeonard (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE is not a valid argument. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  15:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep While it's true that the coverage found generally doesn't discuss the site in-depth, it is extremely extensive. It's clear that at least some portion of the Indian media relies on Box Office India as their main source for ticket take on Indian movies. This means that the website has a significant impact on popular culture reporting, which is one of the evaluative tools WP:WEB asks us to apply. An analogous situation is a reputable city daily newspaper in a smaller city: these rarely receive any coverage about themselves, but clearly have an impact on a large number of lives on a regular basis. I know that this argument (a large number of small mentions "sums up" to the "in-depth coverage" required by WP:GNG), but I can't remember specifically what policy/discussion that's cited to. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn Looks like the site has received significant coverage in the media. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  11:44, 4 February 2013 (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.