Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing Bollywood films (2nd 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   keep. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing Bollywood films
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This list article fails to meet WP:V ("If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it") as both the sites used are primary sources of estimates with no means to verify or challenge their figures. The lead text for this list correctly states that: "Box office figures in India are not published, as there is no official source".

The article is based on two sources and is in essence a mass re-posting of their research:
 * The IBOS network which explains on their disclaimer web page that there is no uniformity in the figures gathered from trade outlets and domestic figures are from trade outlets and unspecified independent theater trackers. Figures for "older films" (unspecified) are extrapolations. The disclaimer page also limits re-use for non-commercial purposes only.
 * BoxOfficeIndia makes the following statement "The numbers on this site are all indicative as actual numbers are rarely given out by producers and distributors." A detailed explanation of how their estimates are created is given on this page which states "The figures on the website are not actual figures but estimates but these estimates are very close to the actual totals."

This AFD is raised in the context of Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing Tamil-language films and Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing Telugu-language films which were deleted for failure to meet WP:V but this article should be judged on its own merits. Fæ (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- Fæ (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- Fæ (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- Fæ (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Many (most?) Indian film articles depend either on this article, or at least on these two sources to show how well the films did. If this article goes away, then under the same rationale must all income figures be removed from all Indian film articles (including GA and FA) as well? How must anyone know which films did well as compared to others? I think it would be wrong to have absolutely no income figures at all. What is so wrong with estimates if estimates are all we have and they are marked as such? BollyJeff  ||  talk  00:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Keep this article.. it is a valuable and only source for list of highest grossing hindi movies in wikipedia.. the sources are proper.. unlike tamil and telugu movies list, this article has geniune source.. so please keep this article..Geocraze talk 17:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and per the discussions in previous similar AfDs shown by the nom. Bollyjeff's concern about the individual articles is valid, but i would say keep the numbers in the film articles and explain there in a footnote or in article text, that the numbers are extrapolations/unreliable etc. It is ok to present numbers with caveats there as long as no conclusions like "highest grossing film" etc are made. But to make an absolute list giving out positions based on such guess work is a bad practice. There is always a danger of such lists reproduced in the media becoming fact through WP:CIRCULAR. (it almost happened in the case of the tamil film list).--Sodabottle (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Conclusions like "highest grossing film" are exactly the kind of statements needed to establish a film's notability to be on WP in the first place. Can't we come up with a way to make these articles work without deleting them entirely? BollyJeff  ||  talk  16:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete per Fæ and Sodabottle. I'd like to point out, that boxofficeindia.com and IBOS websites don't provide details, who they are. These are totally unreliable sources. --Wangond (talk) 06:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep boxofficeindia.com is the primay and most reliable source reporting box office figures for Hindi films in India. Its reliability has already been proven and accepted once on RSN (I'll find the link soon). In general I can say that it is used as a source of information in the most reputed newspapers in India (see links: The Times of India, The Economic Times, Hindustan Times) and even abroad (The Times). I think if these sources can use it, then I see no reason why WP cannot, particularly considering the fact that the data is not presented as factual, but the source is mentioned, letting the readers decide if they want or do not want to believe it. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * newspapers have the same problem like wikipedia having no official box office sources like they have in other countries. So they cite anonymous websites like boxofficeindia.com. You don't even get whois information for this website. This is neither encyclopedic nor good journalism. It violates WP:V--Wangond (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Newspapers do not cite anything that comes their way, this is a very incorrect and baseless statement. Secondly, as I said, the site was accepted on WP:RSN after a long debate. I will try to find it again, and until then I do not see the point of arguing over this. Additionally, this is a source which has been used on Wikipedia for years now and on many Hindi film related articles, and this cannot be ignored. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  15:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The WP:RSN discussion you refer to was probably: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_13. The conclusion was that it is not a reliable source, the exact opposite of your statement here. Please check your facts before making misleading claims about a prior consensus. Fæ (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * First, quit the hostility, because I did not yet make a firm claim and clearly said I'd come with a link. Yes, this is the discussion I'm referring to, and kindly you do check your facts because there was not a conclusion that it was not a reliable source. Throughout the discussion, many editors were for and against, but If you look at the last section of this huge thread, you will see that User:Relata refero finally showed many evidences which proved its reliability, after which Girolamo finally came in support of the site, as did other editors who did not bother to reappear on the board. But you know what, even without this discussion, you can see that most editors on this page are all for using this site, and, except Wangond, you are now the only one who tries hard to disprove it, after it has been used for years on WP without major opposition. Thanks, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  14:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I invite any other reader of this thread to look at the RSN discussion linked which I have just carefully re-read. It contains no such conclusion. Fæ (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder, why no administrator is looking at such issues properly. It was a lenghty discussion with no consensus at all. When there were strong doubts for the source for so many years, why is the source used as if it was reliable? --Wangond (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So do I, particularly the final section, after which no further objections were raised. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  15:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: Just because the data gathered by these sites doesn't meet necessarily current Western standards doesn't mean this information isn't notable.  Suitable disclaimers are and should be used.  This is not uncommon, e.g., pre-20th century newspaper circulation information in the U.S. was not subject to auditing, but we still use that data.  Boxofficeindia.com has been cited by mainstream news sources in India and elsewhere in that region (e.g., The Indian Express citing its figures ).  So has IBOS Network.--Milowent • talkblp-r  16:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Per Shahid. Ridiculous reasonings are being given in face of the reliability of BoxOfficeIndia. Sometimes I really doubt some of these nominators as to do they really do a reliability check? — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 16:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion, however as the nominator that you appear to doubting the competency of, I think that you might benefit by noting that the point of this AfD is that it is not possible to do a reliability check on BoxOfficeIndia as they are a primary source. As has been stated several times, there is no reliable independent data available. Should you be aware of a reliable source that meets WP:V please enlighten the rest of us. Fæ (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, lemme see, so you are saying that this PS is bad, even when third party sources are validating its reliability? Sorry, your nomination is fundamentally flawed. There are zillions of sources, who are actually primary as well as being third party sometimes. Billboard, Rolling Stone, MTV, OCC are all primary sources as well as third party sources. I'm citing them as examples because there are again zillions of third party sources validating their reliability. As I said, moot point to doubt BOI's reliability when that is actually validated as stated above. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 19:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Re-constructive validation based on sources that copy the primary material is not the same thing as a reliability check. Many people may have their primary testimonies of alien abduction much quoted in the press, this does not make publishing an analytical breakdown of alien abduction numbers by country and year based on press interest suddenly encyclopaedic or statistically reliable. Fæ (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep If Boxofficemojo (a primary source) is used as the major reference in List of highest-grossing films, then why can't BOI be used? ---   Managerarc    talk  19:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The difference is that Boxofficemojo uses actual published accounts of box office receipts (see ) whereas BoxOfficeIndia makes up their own estimates with no claim of using actual box office receipts or respectively verifying against later publications of box office receipts (as explained in the nomination). Fæ (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Both websites are somewhat based on estimates. If you see carefully, Boxofficemojo about page also states that "the calendar gross data is generally considered more comprehensive after 2001, while pre-2001 estimates are considered approximate" and "when daily data is not available, estimates are used and are based on weekend and weekly data and historical box office trends." Since BOI mentions that "actual numbers are rarely given out by producers and distributors" hence it is impossible to calculate the real gross revenue of a film upto the last decimal unit, so estimates are considered close to the actual gross. ---   Managerarc    talk  14:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not quite the story here. One website is entirely creative estimates with no published data or a repeatable process of calculation, the other uses some calculated statistical estimates to flesh out trends based on published accounts and some other numbers are calculated with published data without any estimation needed. Fæ (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Shahid.Hillcountries (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note on probable copyvio - Based on a discussion at the MCQ noticeboard it appears that mass reposting data from BOI as used in this article is a copyright violation as BOI restricts re-use to non-commercial purposes only. I would like this issue considered an extension of the nomination rationale. Fæ (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply - wrong. First, it's not really a discussion as such, considering you are the one who started it and there is only one reply from an editor who did not really approve of your claim. Secondly, if you look at the table, there isn't really mass reposting data. It is definitely not cut and pasted. The table is designed in an altogether different layout, with several columns in the original site being omitted and several others being added. Moreover, the same could be said about List of highest-grossing films. And to sum it up, the original source is perfectly acknowledged throughout the article. Thank you, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  14:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) Regardless of what BOI claims, what makes you think that box office figures are copyrightable? postdlf (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Statistics are not copyrightable, however original estimates (as described by BOI) are not statistics but creative analysis and so when re-pasting entire tables of their data (rather than, say, specifically quoting which film BOI rank as third by box-office income in 2008) we are re-publishing their original research as commercially reusable (as per the notice on every Wikipedia page). The fact the BOI specifically restrict their website to non-commercial use in their terms and conditions is hard to overlook. Note, the figures are not actually "box office figures" as these do not exist, the figures being requoted are more clearly described as estimates with unknown accuracy. Fæ (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, those who know the most accurate earnings of a film are the film's producers, and they are not a reliable source. More than truth, there's attribution, which WP works according to. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  15:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering only the copyright question and not the other merits of the article, I believe that if the article is retained it will need to be much abbreviated for copyright concerns unless we can determine that these figures actually are "fact" and not opinion, as the links to the source website suggest they are. If the figures reflect consistent statistics that would be generated by anyone in compiling such a list, they are factual. If they are based on estimates weighting various market factors but ultimately relying on subjectivity (which factors to consider and in what weight, for instance), then the information is copyrightable and we must utilize it in accordance with fair use and WP:NFC. In that case, we might reasonably include a brief listing in a stand-alone article (top 5 or 10 or what have you, as we do with the subjectively generated Forbes list of billionaires or The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time), and articles on individual films can easily sustain references to the estimate for that particular film. Including extensive listings in one article, though, is akin to including album covers in a discography. What may be more easily defensible in individual articles is not quite so easy to defend when gathered in one place. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of trimming the article as in the examples above rather than deleting it completely. Say reduce the number in the top list from 30 films to 10 or 15; keep the yearly and throughout history tables, but delete the monthly and openings tables. Make it even more clear in the text that these are estimates, not hard facts. I would be happy to work on this. Maybe not what everyone wants, but sometimes compromise is necessary. BollyJeff  ||  talk  18:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: How this article even nominated? this is an only Wikipedia's article which is related to such important subject for Indian(Hindi) cinema and sources are enough reliable to mention here on Wikipedia. Bill william compton (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thousands of articles on Wikipedia are about Indian and Hindi cinema, see Category:Cinema of India and WP:ILIKEIT. By definition, none of them depends on this list for their existence. Thanks Fæ (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all you should think before mentioning your opinion; i never said there is any shortage of articles related to Indian cinema. Second, this article is not a mine personal like, i voted for retaining this, because this article is unique in itself, except it there is no such article which compiles the data related to highest-grossing films of Indian/Hindi cinema. Bill william compton (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for your opinion and personal advice. You might find WP:ATA useful for future deletion discussions. Fæ (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, no evidence that the sources provided for information in this list are official and accurate. Box-office statistics reported in the media in Indian cinema are highly estimated. EelamStyleZ (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:VERIFY The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. That's policy.  If the sources are considered reliable sources, then that's it.   D r e a m Focus  21:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you explain why you believe the two sources named in the nomination meet WP:V, in particular how do they meet the requirement for an article to be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy when as far as I can determine these sources clearly state that the facts cannot be checked or determined as accurate? Fæ (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Copyright content There's surely no issue with the tables: they're simple data presented in an unimaginative format, and there's no real difference between copying these tables and copying the telephone book. Nyttend (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As Moonriddengirl explained, the difference is creative content. The estimates are created using an unclear process of market intelligence and experience, they are not simple measurements, calculations or names in a phone book. Fæ (talk) 07:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, if these are simple statistics, there's no issue, but so far as has been determined at this point, they are not: they are educated guesses and hence subjective. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment(On only the copyright issue): The "copying the telephone book" argument is only relevant if the data was used anew, not about how the data was obtained and presented. The overall outcome was about the data itself, not the formatting, being copyrightable. The Ruling of the Court needs to be understood, not just blindly read. Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that, in the United States, the sine qua non of copyright is originality, and the "originality" factor is not set that high. Information (data) from the phone book can be used, and re-arranged, perhaps only listing the business that are located in a downtown area, and presented in a new book called "Business in the Downtown Area". That book *can* be copyrighted and a person can not simply cut and paste, or reproduce, that book and call it their own simply because the underlying data may be considered "free". One must also keep in mind that Wikipedia tends to follow US Law, although other countries laws are surely considered: for example European Union law has certain database rights. In Australia a phone book can be copyrighted, but this copyright protection only covers the unique arrangement of data within the compilation, however, not the data itself. In any case one of the issues behind this discussion is the material may have been cut and pasted, which by US law (and Wikipedia policy) is not allowed. Another issue is the information provided is *not* normally publicly available, as such it may be original data subject to other conditions. The wider issue that comes into play is a "fair use" issue (If this is original information put together by a commercial news outlet, which IBOS is, and is sold to be used does Wikipedia's use, by not paying, fail our policy? The answer is "yes" if we are using all of that data in a cut and paste situation) which needs to be addressed elsewhere. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. This article has been the source of all Box Office figures for Bollywood films for years. Its reliability is, I accept, a little hazy. But the website publishing these figures (BoxOfficeIndia.Com) have been referred to repeatedly in various other highly-reputed sources such as magazines, international newspapers and the like. Also, like some of the other editors pointed out, deleting this list would mean having to remove box office figures from each and every Bollywood film article in Wikipedia - a task which will waste thousands of hours for a futile and incorrect end. What I cannot understand is why the deletion of THIS particualr article has come up so late, when any problems should have been fixed much before. Removing this article would mean diverting editorial efforts to absolutely useless tasks which can be used for much more useful and helpful work. Plus, the "reliability" factor is baseless. The figures are educated guesses, and are well within the frameworks of fact. After all, these figures are obtained from on-site people, so the figures used cannot be absolutely unreliable ankit is bc bc bc.  Ankit Bhatt  Talk to me!! LifEnjoy 13:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The nomination is about this stand-alone list article which mass re-pastes and ranks unverifiable estimates created by the organizations/websites mentioned in the nomination. Individual quotes of estimates are a different issue and there is no suggestion or recommendation in this AfD that all such quotes would be removed from other articles or to blacklist the websites cited. Fæ (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2011 (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.