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. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-grossing Bollywood films[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of highest-grossing Bollywood films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list article fails to meet WP:V ("If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it") as both the sites used are primary sources of estimates with no means to verify or challenge their figures. The lead text for this list correctly states that: "Box office figures in India are not published, as there is no official source".

The article is based on two sources and is in essence a mass re-posting of their research:

This AFD is raised in the context of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing Tamil-language films and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing Telugu-language films which were deleted for failure to meet WP:V but this article should be judged on its own merits. Fæ (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions like "highest grossing film" are exactly the kind of statements needed to establish a film's notability to be on WP in the first place. Can't we come up with a way to make these articles work without deleting them entirely? BollyJeff || talk 16:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
newspapers have the same problem like wikipedia having no official box office sources like they have in other countries. So they cite anonymous websites like boxofficeindia.com. You don't even get whois information for this website. This is neither encyclopedic nor good journalism. It violates WP:V--Wangond (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers do not cite anything that comes their way, this is a very incorrect and baseless statement. Secondly, as I said, the site was accepted on WP:RSN after a long debate. I will try to find it again, and until then I do not see the point of arguing over this. Additionally, this is a source which has been used on Wikipedia for years now and on many Hindi film related articles, and this cannot be ignored. Shahid • Talk2me 15:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:RSN discussion you refer to was probably: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_13#Boxofficeindia.com. The conclusion was that it is not a reliable source, the exact opposite of your statement here. Please check your facts before making misleading claims about a prior consensus. Fæ (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, quit the hostility, because I did not yet make a firm claim and clearly said I'd come with a link. Yes, this is the discussion I'm referring to, and kindly you do check your facts because there was not a conclusion that it was not a reliable source. Throughout the discussion, many editors were for and against, but If you look at the last section of this huge thread, you will see that User:Relata refero finally showed many evidences which proved its reliability, after which Girolamo finally came in support of the site, as did other editors who did not bother to reappear on the board. But you know what, even without this discussion, you can see that most editors on this page are all for using this site, and, except Wangond, you are now the only one who tries hard to disprove it, after it has been used for years on WP without major opposition. Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 14:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I invite any other reader of this thread to look at the RSN discussion linked which I have just carefully re-read. It contains no such conclusion. Fæ (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder, why no administrator is looking at such issues properly. It was a lenghty discussion with no consensus at all. When there were strong doubts for the source for so many years, why is the source used as if it was reliable? --Wangond (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So do I, particularly the final section, after which no further objections were raised. Shahid • Talk2me 15:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of trimming the article as in the examples above rather than deleting it completely. Say reduce the number in the top list from 30 films to 10 or 15; keep the yearly and throughout history tables, but delete the monthly and openings tables. Make it even more clear in the text that these are estimates, not hard facts. I would be happy to work on this. Maybe not what everyone wants, but sometimes compromise is necessary. BollyJeff || talk 18:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all you should think before mentioning your opinion; i never said there is any shortage of articles related to Indian cinema. Second, this article is not a mine personal like, i voted for retaining this, because this article is unique in itself, except it there is no such article which compiles the data related to highest-grossing films of Indian/Hindi cinema. Bill william compton (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for your opinion and personal advice. You might find WP:ATA useful for future deletion discussions. Fæ (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment(On only the copyright issue): The "copying the telephone book" argument is only relevant if the data was used anew, not about how the data was obtained and presented. The overall outcome was about the data itself, not the formatting, being copyrightable. The Ruling of the Court needs to be understood, not just blindly read. Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that, in the United States, the sine qua non of copyright is originality, and the "originality" factor is not set that high. Information (data) from the phone book can be used, and re-arranged, perhaps only listing the business that are located in a downtown area, and presented in a new book called "Business in the Downtown Area". That book *can* be copyrighted and a person can not simply cut and paste, or reproduce, that book and call it their own simply because the underlying data may be considered "free". One must also keep in mind that Wikipedia tends to follow US Law, although other countries laws are surely considered: for example European Union law has certain database rights. In Australia a phone book can be copyrighted, but this copyright protection only covers the unique arrangement of data within the compilation, however, not the data itself. In any case one of the issues behind this discussion is the material may have been cut and pasted, which by US law (and Wikipedia policy) is not allowed. Another issue is the information provided is *not* normally publicly available, as such it may be original data subject to other conditions. The wider issue that comes into play is a "fair use" issue (If this is original information put together by a commercial news outlet, which IBOS is, and is sold to be used does Wikipedia's use, by not paying, fail our policy? The answer is "yes" if we are using all of that data in a cut and paste situation) which needs to be addressed elsewhere. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2011 (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.
More