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


 * 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. Consensus is to keep at this time (non-admin closure) ES  &#38;L  11:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing Kollywood films

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Official box office records are not kept in India, and definitely not in Tamil Nadu. There are no figures for these films and almost all the given sources are very very poor and unreliable. Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, we could either delete the article or replace it only with information verified by boxofficeindia, which I believe is the one source that the project has come to accept for box office takes. The sources currently in the article obviously have to go, consisting mainly of blogs or other self-published sources. If there is somehow an argument for keeping this, then I'll have to go in and remove every poor source from the article, and then remove all the unsourced information; my guess is that this will probably leave the article empty, though I've only scanned the article quickly. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This would be an interesting and worthwhile article if there were sources covering it. But there don't seem to be me. The nominator's logic appears sound to me and I can't see how this subject should be kept without allowing original research and improper sourcing. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and obviously write the gross collection in the article without which it is meaningless. Even if there is no one fixed source to the collection figures, as long as the source is independent, the number is acceptable. We have used such independent sources in many articles; GAs, FAs. When the info can be present their on individual pages, i see no reason why it can't be clubbed together in one article and arranged in progression. We definitely need to clarify that the sources are different and values are disputed. But the topic is notable and content is sourced. I have hidden non-RSs and the scene doesn't seem very bad. But i haven't verified anything with the sources. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 11:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Are reliable statistics kept on the grosses? If so and if the numbers are added to the article I think it can be kept, but do these figures exist and if so where? Candleabracadabra (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  06:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep the subject is obviously important, and if the sources are less reliable than we would like, they are nonetheelss enough to support the article, as long as their approximate nature is made clear there.  DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 8 November 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.