Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boxoffice (magazine)


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Boxoffice (magazine)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnotable magazine; fails WP:N. Prod removed by User:Ed Wood's Wig without any reason given. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is one of the major trade journals for the U.S. film industry. It is not as well known to the general public as Variety or Hollywood Reporter, but it carries major clout within the industry. The article needs better referencing, but it shouldn't be here. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not better referencing, it needs some period. Can you provide any that actually shows it is a major trade journal, carries major clout, etc. from reliable, third-party sources? --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per Pastor Theo. Having been published for 89 years does tend to help a magazine establish notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Occasionally something that seems like it ought to meet guidelines for notability doesn't. Is there sufficient in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources to achieve notability or not, that's the question we should be examining, not various flavors of WP:ILIKEIT. Drawn Some (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Obvious Keep Occasionally something obviously notable in the real-world sense of the world fails to pass WP's home-made, OR-based, lacking-in-basis-in-Reliable-Sourcing "notability" guidelines. If our "rules" say a well-known journal with an 89-year history fails "notability", then fix the Goddamned rules. We're supposed to be here to write an encyclopedia, not to make up a rule-book to play games with. Dekkappai (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Something that is "not as well known to the general public" (as Pastor Theo points out) is not "obviously notable in the real-world sense of the word" (as you would have us believe) and needs references to prove notability. If there are no references for notability, then verifiability is a problem, too.  There are plenty of 89 year old whatevers that don't belong in Wikipedia.  Obscure single-industry trade journals may not always have a place here.  Appeal to the age of the something or unproved importance to a small group of people doesn't persuade me. Drawn Some (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Appeals to common sense don't persuade a lot of people around here. I hope I didn't give the impression I was adressing you. Dekkappai (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The only two sources given are not independent. Significant in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources is required for notability and verifiability.  At least with Charlie the Unicorn we know how many people have watched the video; we don't even know the circulation of this magazine to make a claim of popularity, much less notability.  Drawn Some (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep User:Drawn Some made a valid point about circulation that required some research. Box Office Magazine's online service Boxoffice.com receives 220 thousand US hits monthly (2,640,000 yearly), and 424 thousand Global visits monthly (5,088,000 yearly) . Comparatively, Box Office Mojo receives 740 thousand US monthly (8,880,000 yearly). Box Office Mojo is older and larger. Box Office's online version in newer and growing faster. Note: Box Office Magazine itself is spoken of in Reliable Sources Yes, article need sourcing. Its available with a search. Send to WP:CLEANUP.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Artw (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Its been in publication a very long time, and its the official publication of the National Association of Theatre Owners. The wikipedia has two policies for this, called ignore all rules, and use common sense.  The guidelines are suggestions, not rules.  Remember that.   D r e a m Focus  22:34, 29 May 2009 (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.