Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing Indian films worldwide


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing Indian films worldwide

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A totally unsourced and orphaned list, completely full of unsourced figures and other inaccuracies. BollyJeff &#124;  talk  16:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 17:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 17:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 17:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. "Unsourced" does not mean "unsourceable"; the former is not a deletion rationale, the latter is. But that nitpicking aside, I know from prior AFDs that there have been genuine concerns raised with whether box office figures for Indian movies are even verifiable. I don't know if that would apply to the Indian film industry, or just box office from within India. postdlf (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The most likely source is Box Office India, but their info is not free. For the List of highest-grossing Bollywood films there was an RFC where is was decided that only certain elements 1, 3, 5, 10, etc, could be added, not the whole list. Off topic, but is there a better way to do lists? Right now the item in number 1 is not even an Indian film, but to remove it would require updating every row of the table.  BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  18:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed those British films. There is no reason to keep wrong info just for the reason that readers might think Wikipedians don't know how to count. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 13:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You missed Monsoon Wedding. Is that considered an Indian film? It does appear on other Indian film lists.  BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  14:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not notice it then. But now i am not sure of it. Golden Globes calls it Indian. But then they do the same with Gandhi. But Gandhi has been described as British/Indian in many other sources. More reason to delete this list. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 18:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Sources could be found. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Waste of time. there are other cleanup tags in case u have douts on what is an Indian film exactly. All sources available otherwise. The lister mostly thought its WP:SYNTHESIS but its not.Hometech (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Inaccuracy is the very reason for deletion of this list. You can't rank entities based on some wrong info. Another issue is that the list is using various sources. Ideally, it shouldn't be a problem. But various discussions on various talk pages related to worldwide gross has only concluded on the fact that various sources have considered various incomes in gross. Eg: some have considered only original-language market whereas some have also added incomes from dubbed versions of films. Another point that i would object is that all the figures are not adjusted to inflation and even if adjusted are not taken from a certain fixed short period. eg: Sholays entry has been taken from a source after adjustment till 2012. For others (its basically unsourced) it is mostly from different ages. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 18:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete:It lacks source and hey There is another article related to bollywood collections. It has no neede on wiki.Pks1142 (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Keep These types of articles help keep English wikipedia relevant to the rest of the world outside the United States of America. StanleyTAnderson (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Reasonable list; interesting as one approach to assessing most "important" films from India. Sourcing problems are content issues to be raised at article's Talk page, not justification for deletion.  If there is an issue of too much overlap with List of highest-grossing Bollywood films (which is possible), then that should be addressed by Talk page discussion, e.g. a merge proposal. -- do  ncr  am  03:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Its not simple content issue. The issue is not on who the producer of the film is or when it was certified or such. The issue is on the main gross value itself which makes the list. And its not sortable at all. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 05:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information - Jimmy Wales. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 12:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve. The topic is appropriate for a list, and sources are available and should be used.  DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, the article is a complete vandal magnet as well. Those of you saying keep are welcomed to try and fix it. At least have a look at the activity over the last few days/weeks. The sources... on second thought, I give up. Please just close this. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  01:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't delete things because we're afraid of vandals.  D r e a m Focus  17:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Any problems you can discuss on the talk page, and they can be fixed. No valid reason given to delete this.  They have a massive film industry there, in a nation of over a billion people.   D r e a m Focus  17:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I doubt anyone is gonna discuss things on talk page. All keep voters are gonna forget about this article as none of them are members of WP:INCINE and after its kept after so many tries of having it deleted, all Delete voters are gonna wear i-dont-care masks. This wrong information is gonna stay for ever. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 04:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The talk page currently has no discussions on it by anyone. You can list why you don't consider the sources to be accurate there, and start trying to figure out how to find more accurate ones if that's a real problem.  Surely their media covers box office information.  And we had this same discussion almost two years ago at Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing Bollywood films (2nd nomination).  As I said then, 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  09:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: right info or wrong, topic is a valid one. BTW, its not that only members of WP:INCINE can add values to articles related to Indian cinema.--GDibyendu (talk) 08:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good! Problem solved! In that case we will simply keep the wrong info. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 12:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Dharmadhyaksha, you keep on claiming that the information in the article is wrong. Fine, but do you know what the correct information is? Salih  ( talk ) 18:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have to echo postdlf's comments. The deletion rationale states that the article is unsourced and orphaned.  Being an orphan is not relevant.  Being unsourced could be, but only if reliable sources are not available.  A later comment by the nominator suggests that sources are available, but may not be free.  Lack of free sources is not a reason to delete, i.e., WP:PAYWALL. Rlendog (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at List of highest-grossing Bollywood films to see what the non-free source did there: 1,3,6,10,etc. Even that has been changed over time. This article is showing all of them, but with different or no sources. Is that better?  In reality most high grossing Indian films are Bollywood films, so this list would be the same as that list with the addition of 2 or 3 extra films. Maybe a merge would be better than a straight delete, but in reality the data to be merged is already there, just not all of it. Okay how about delete do to duplicate data? I don't know what is the right way to frame this in wiki-policy-speak, but to me the article is serving very little purpose other than that already served by List of highest-grossing Bollywood films. Maybe I am just upset because that one was hobbled to 1,3,6,etc where this one is a free-for-all.  BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  19:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell from the discussion around that article, the issue is that the source is not providing objective facts regarding the highest grossing films but rather their own estimates. If that is the case, and if there is no objective information regarding the grosses or rankings of grosses, that would imply that the subject is unsourceable, which would be a valid reason for deleting. Although if a solution along the lines of the Bollywood list is acceptable and meets copyright requirements, there may still be an argument for keeping or merging (or, if this entire list would replicate the Bollywood list, then redirecting).  Rlendog (talk) 20:59, 10 January 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.