Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Box Office India (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. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Box Office India

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although it's a while, I still don't think this website has sufficient notability to be included. In 2008, the website itself was not considered a reliable source because there was no indication on who was behind the site. Ignoring this brief statement that the source is reliable with no discussion, the only jusification I can see for it was the same as the reasoning in the prior AFD for not deleting it: the website is used and refered to extensively as seen here, but that is not significant coverage in any way, just an inherited notability based on the sources that cover it. ~~The Techshali link (it's a dead domain name now) was the only potential for third-party coverage.~~ To this day, this is still zero information on who is behind the site including from the website itself. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An archived version of the TechShali link shows that there is little evidence that TechShali would qualify as a reliable source nor does it provide much mroe detail about Box Office India. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bollyjeff and Prashant!, please share your views. I believe the site should not be blacklisted, not even deleted, because of the reliability we have had on it all these years. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792:, there are rules against canvassing. No one is suggesting blacklisting (here at least), we're just discussing the article at the moment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know about this. I wasn't even aware that it was up for deletion and was about to be blacklisted. Well, I think the website provides much information about box-office collections of Bollywood films. But again i have not seen anyone from Bollywood saying a word about it. Infact www.boxofficeindia.co.in is more often used by industry people. Karan Johar retweets several tweets from co.in but .com is still a mystery. If i'm not wrong Boxofficeindia.co.in is a monthy or weekly magazine and several Bollywood personalities have shared their interviews, and other stuffs. —Prashant 10:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any indication that this site is connected with the one in question here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know. What i mean is that dot com is still mysterious. Bollywood professionals does not even mention the website in the interviews and all. Now-a-days all newspapers look to wikipedia for gathering knowledge and that's why some of the newspapers are saying this (According to a report in Boxofficeindia.com and blah blah blah!)—Prashant 10:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this can help or not but you need to look at this. I followed several bollywood personalities and got to know that all of them follow Boxofficeindia.co.in and it also has a verified account. I think people from an industry know better than us.—Prashant 10:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Know what? Whether or not they know anything or not doesn't answer the question of whether this article is appropriate. We still don't have reliable source about this website (not the .co.in page). Everyone here is using the .com for all the box office grosses not that twitter feed or that link or whatever. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all the Bollywood personalities follow this (.co.in) and they even post something from the magazine pages. However, the .com is never mentioned by any industry professionals. I think the most people on Wikipedia are confusing that there are two boxofficeindia websites. Atleast, the .co.in is more reliable and .com is only used here, with no sign of reliability.—Prashant 10:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's an argument I'm having at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Box_office_collections_for_Bajrangi_Bhaijaan, about whether we should consider boxofficeindia.com a reliable source. As to this AFD, it's a question of whether this website should be kept, and for that, I can find zero indication short of the fact that newspapers seem to cite this website ~~(and I'm thinking it's this website not the trade magazine because the trade one doesn't publish daily box office results)~~ that this website is notable. As to the trade magazine, that's another issue entirely, if someone wants to create an article for that, that's on them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this Times of India is pretty explicitly citing BoxOfficeIndia.com so that's still the issue still. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the .com has no reliability then it must be deleted and blacklisted. The newspapers are citing the source because those sources are ultimately added to all film articles. The reporters search Wikipedia for these stuffs an they cite in their newspapers.—Prashant 11:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know what the newspapers do? Ever since I have been editing here, boxofficeindia.com has been considered as the one and only definitive source for box office results. I don't know how it was established as such, but I just took it as fact. If that was all wrong, we are in trouble. It is cited everywhere, including GAs and FAs. What would be the alternative, if the newspapers themselves are using wikipedia?? BollyJeff | talk 11:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read a lot of articles published in leading newspaper that resembles Wikipedia text from A to Z, which is really sad. I don't know about this website because i always suspected its reliability. First it is never mentioned by any industry professionals and second the same industry people talks about boxofficeindia.co.in. The latter is a magazine published weekly i guess, and is followed by personalities like Karan Johar. And, i agree we are in a big trouble and will have to move with other sources.—Prashant 12:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quoting from the last AfD, " While it's true that the coverage found generally doesn't discuss the site in-depth, it is extremely extensive. It's clear that at least some portion of the Indian media relies on Box Office India as their main source for ticket take on Indian movies. This means that the website has a significant impact on popular culture reporting, which is one of the evaluative tools WP:WEB asks us to apply". Also see the last few comments in this discussion, in which it was proven that this website has been used in scholarly publications as a source.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of those scholarly publication links are relevant. This link is citing www.bosnetwork.com and ibossnetwork.com on page 30. This link cites the IBOS network and OBS on page 49. This page cites IBOSnetwork on page 9. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ibosnetwork can be notable on its own; we are not debating that issue here. This case, boxofficeindia.com has been used multiple times in popular culture (as evident from usual google search) and scholarly resources. What do you mean by " Not one of those scholarly publication links are relevant"? Why are not they relevant? If you need more recent coverage, see these: [1]; [2]; [3]; and so on.Books published by significant publications are mentioning this as a source, thus giving coverage needed to establish notability. The notability has been proven in previous AfD and other discussions. Why waste time again?--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't relevant because those "sources" didn't even cite this website. They cited ibosnetwork which is my point. You can't justify this website on the basis that other sources cite other things. Are you actually reading these things? Now, you're got more books that allegedly source this website. Here, this page claims that this website started in June 2013. Your Source 1 retrieved it in March 2009, Source 2 in March 2013. Source 3 has no date but it was published in 2014 but I can't pull the actual website page it's allegedly using. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's because Wikipedia is now used as a source for those works. I will show you some article which are copy-paste from Wikipedia articles. This website has no reliability. Yes, it is useful because it provides lots of sources but it can be anything. Those works which you are talking about has no proof if the site is really reliable. Those works say according to a source called "Boxofficeindia.com" and that's it. Those newspapers also mention Koimoi then why it is not used for box-office collections?—Prashant 15:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant, wikipedia also states according to boxofficeIndia.com; in-text attribution is must for this kind of data. Any respectable author will always make sure that the data is attributed to the source. We are not debating reliability, rather notability. --Dwaipayan (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it's somehow reliable, there's nothing here that we can write an article about since there's significant independent coverage about this website. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable and notable for this project. Aero Slicer 13:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The .com version is being used extensively by 'Times of India': [4], with only one usage of .co.in: [5]. 'Telegraph India' uses both; here is one for the .com: [6]. I couldn't find a search feature on 'Hindustan Times' or 'The Hindu', it's broken on DNA, and I am tired now. BollyJeff | talk 00:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.