Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Box office capsule

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 delete. Those opposing deletion offer no arguments that are consistent with policy and guidelines. Simply asserting that something is notable does not make it so; furthermore, Alexa ranking is not by itself any indication of notability. However, as pointed out by those recommending deletion, there is one piece of detailed reliable independent coverage, so if another should pop up, recreation may be acceptable. I will userfy a copy if anyone would like to continue to work on this in the future. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Box office capsule

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

Article about a website does that does not seem to meet notability requirements of either WP:NWEB or notability presumption requirements of WP:GNG. Google, GNews don't turn up anything at first glance that seems like a reliable source in addition to the single (partial) source currently referenced. BenTels (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: It has been reviewed by the leading Indian daily The Times Of India, here, so seems notable..plus its ranked 72,026 at Alexa rank, plus here's webstatsdomain review -Ekabhishek^talk 08:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The Times of India article is the one I mentioned above as the partial source. That's one -- both WP:NWEB and WP:GNG require multiple. The other two deal with web rankings, which do not confer notability. -- BenTels (talk) 09:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is one more link within the article of a daily already added, see Daily Bhaskar, which mentions opinion of the website in its article, so that should help. Since the site got a lots of google hits and mention in various webpages, so must be an upcoming site, since it was established in late 2011.. --Ekabhishek^talk 04:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sourcing is not sufficient to meet inclusion. The Times of India is a fine source and covers the web site in detail. However, beyond that, the coverage is sparse. The Daily Bhaskar article is not coverage about the web site and simply mentions the web site. I was unable to find any other coverage about the web site. -- Whpq (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sourcing is insufficient to establish WP:RS for WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a notable website (specially in India) --Tito Dutta ✉ 17:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable website for Bollywood and other films. Torreslfchero (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can either of the above editors point out the reliable sources that establish the claimed notability? -- Whpq (talk) 00:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only the "Times of India" article is decent coverage from a reliable source. Unfortunately, multiple sources are required to establish notability, and there are no others that I have found. The one good write up is a decent start, and I have no prejudice of the article being recreated if it begins to garner more attention from RS, but it fails the notability requirements for websites currently. Rorshacma (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Alexa rank makes it notable enough to be kept. + It is quite notable here, especially when it come to bollywood. I remember at least one AfD where an article about a website, remotely notable in UK was speedily kept as it had 69,545 alexa rank worldwide and 1,330 in UK. When compared to MyMaths, Box office capsule has 72,026 world wide and 7,767 in India. And this is enough for me to get that it is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 23:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa ranking is never a valid indicator of notability. The AFD you bring up resulted in a Keep because of the reliable secondary sources that were found, not because of its Alexa ranking. That is not the case here. Rorshacma (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Neither www.boxofficecapsule.com nor Box office capsule bring up any articles. The website was created in Jan 2012 and doesn't seem to have generated any news interest other than the two news articles posted in the article. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Although there's a lack of in-depth third party refs, its content has been referred to by dfilmybuzz.com and bollywoodeye.co.uk, which I believe contributes to demonstrating notability. -- Trevj (talk) 10:36, 25 September 2012 (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.