Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Numbers (website) (3rd 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 speedy keep. No valid reason has been presented for deletion, "Non-notable website" isn't really a valid reason - You need to explain why you don't believe it's not notable ... but anyway either way it's a keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 00:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The Numbers (website)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

non-notable website Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. While this article isn't much to speak of, The Numbers and its founder Bruce Nash are frequently cited in media coverage of movie box office results. See The Wrap, CNBC, and The Keene Sentinel (via the Washington Post), just from the last three days. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * To me that just shows the website and its' founder are useful and famous respectively. It does not suggest that either are notable enough to warrant an article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone  10:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Examples: Indonesia, India and Mexico.
 * Strong Keep This subject and website is notable, it is quoted in many publications in terms of box office grosses for movies, it is perhaps only second to Box Office Mojo. Both are notable and cited frequently by the film industry and both are popular sites, they are both notable.  I'm the author of this article.  I vote Strong Keep. Neptune&#39;s Trident (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Numbers is used extensively as a source of analysis in reliable sources.  Some of the sources go fairly in-depth about the methodology used to make market predictions, such as this source.  The article is expandable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as covered in reliable sources such as the one identified above passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as a boxoffice nut this site is great in that it actually has more accurate International numbers than other sites like boxofficemojo which, since it has been taken over by Brad Brevort, has really been unreliable (I was a fan of that site since the Brandon Gray days). So because its being used more and more as a citation for boxoffice grosses it only makes sense for it to have its own page. A little off topic here back awhile back I asked Ray Subers at BOM why the numbers on his site were always behind and he told me via E-Mails that We don't have the time to constantly bother distributors for International numbers. If they come in they come in. He also told me that if there as a discrepancy between BOM and Thenumbers to use the numbers since they’re able to nag these distributors more often than we are. Ryan Urban of thenumbers told me their International tracking is more accurate than BOM's in an E-mail he sent me (this was in regards to why they have a different number for Rogue Nation than BOM has) where he stated Yes, our numbers are accurate. We have more complete international tracking than Box Office Mojo. If you compare these two charts, you can see that we have international grosses for some territories that are missing from BOM's international total.

http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Mission-Impossible-Rogue-Nation#tab=international

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=mi5.htm

''Slight variations in total box office for some countries between the two charts are the result of different reporting sources and exchange rates.

''Thanks for you interest in The Numbers. We recently started international box office tracking and we are continuing to expand our international coverage.''Giantdevilfish (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2016 (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.