Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing 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 Snowball Keep -- JForget 01:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing films

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

This is a list taken from boxofficemojo.com. Needs to be maintained over time. Isn't this free advertising for this site? Anshuk (talk) 09:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Excellent article which gives no undue prominence to boxofficemojo.com. It is our policy to cite sources so articles should not criticised for doing so. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Box Office Mojo is a good source but it's not the only source for this kind of information. It can be found at IMDb, The-Numbers.com, and many other places. This article in no way advertises any websites. --Pixelface (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Nominator does not provide a valid reason for deletion - virtually all of our articles have to be updated as new information comes out about our subjects (Wikipedia isn't printed on paper). The list is not a copyvio as implied, nor is it advertising as previously discussed. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 13:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —Pixelface (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep What's so difficult to maintain about this article??? The three Bollywood things you nominated need to be merged though. The Dominator (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep just because it is the primary source doesn't mean it's advertising. And go delete the whole Category:Best sellers then. igordebraga ≠ 16:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Although it might be advertising, it's a good list.Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Excellent article with useful information. The text portion of the article could use a little expansion, but it is valuable nonetheless.Tomanyletters (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - even today I was looking for the information covered in this article for my academic work... And I found this AfD :) Pundit | utter  01:26, 6 March 2008 (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.