Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highest-grossing films in overseas markets


 * 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. Mackensen (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Highest-grossing films in overseas markets

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails general notabilty criteria. Uses the global chart at Box Office Mojo to construct a list of "highest overseas grossers". There is plenty of RS coverage of the US and worldwide charts to establish them individually as notable topics, but the "overseas" chart is just a by-product of these two charts i.e. it is not notable in its own right, since it is contextually dependent on the notablity of the other two charts. It exists solely to offer perspective on the US box office and how much of the global market it accounts for, so it doesn't makes sense to just list it on its own.

There are inherent WP:WORLDVIEW problems with the scope of the article too, since there is an "overseas" chart for every national chart. Betty Logan (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep But give a proper name to it. The topic is top USA film exports.  It seems like a reasonable enough topic, and certainly important within the film industry. Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As it stands it is not a list of US film exports, it's a box-office chart derived from subtracting the US box-office from the global box-office. A list of US film exports wouldn't include foreign films, which the BOM chart does do. I wouldn't actually oppose a list of exports, but that would involve a fundamental change to the scope of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 07:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess I was thinking they were all considered American productions. If "Lord of the Rings" is considered a New Zealand movie (not sure if it is) it would be kind of silly to compare its overseas gross to an American movie's. Kitfoxxe (talk) 07:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a very confused list, in fact I'm not completely sure what it is doing. If you look at this chart, you will see that the Wikipedia chart doesn't include the Ice Age movies that are completely American produced, even though it includes the American produced Alice in Wonderland which grossed less (8, 9 and 10 on BOM chart). On the other hand, it includes the Harry Potter movies which are classified by the American Film Institute as US/UK co-productions, but not Skyfall which is classified as a US/UK co-production. Much of this could be cleared up though if it were converted to a list of US exports, since there would be a clearly defined scope for the list then. I'd be ok with keeping it as a list of exports, but that decision is down to the AfD process. Betty Logan (talk) 07:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a single column of data that could be included in the List of highest-grossing films. Almost all of the cites are to a single source, Box Office Mojo. It's unclear why we should be trying to replicate Box Office Mojo who already does it better. The inclusion criteria is confusing and besides with films produced internationally would limiting it to "USA only" be of any value. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Green Cardamom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete We can't create an article for every box office stat/ Boxofficegeek (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge / Redirect to List of highest-grossing films per cogent argument by User:Green Cardamom.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merging it into List of highest-grossing films isn't really appropriate because that article focuses exclusively on worldwide figures. Adding a list of figures that are basically the worldwide figures with the American portion subtracted doesn't make any sense, because then it wouldn't be a worldwide chart. Why not add a list of figures with the European market removed? or the Asian markets? I don't see why we should compromise the WP:WORLDVIEW of an FA rated article just to accommodate indiscriminate data. Betty Logan (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment It's probably worth pointing out that the article was created by a sock that has since been blocked: User:Besharamsun. Betty Logan (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing that sad news. I see that User:Besharamsun was blocked per WP:DUCK. Still though, and despite its origins, we now have sourcable information that can be placed elsewhere to improve the project. I agree with User:Kitfoxxe that it's a reasonable enough topic. What we can do is determine just where such information best serves Wikipedia. Surely not the trash bin?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)




 * Comment There seems to be some confusion about what this data actually is. This data is basically a calculation by which the US box office grosses at List of highest-grossing films in Canada and the United States are subtracted from the worldwide box office grosses at List of highest-grossing films. That is basically all it is: this chart is just the result of an arithmetic operation on two sets of data that already exist on Wikipedia. The data was obtained from Box Office Mojo (an American box office tracker), where it primarily serves to show how well a film performs in the United States compared to everywhere else. The data in itself is meaningless without the US data for comparison, which is why I nominated this article for deletion. There have been two suggestions made besides deletion:
 * Remove all the non-American films from the list, effectively turning it into a list of most successful US exports (as per Kitfoxxe).
 * Merge into List of highest-grossing films.
 * Out of the two options I think the first is preferable, since you can at least make a case a list of exports is notable, and there is some definite inclusion criteria. As for merging into List of highest-grossing films, I don't think it's a good idea since all the data at that article are global figures, so merging would effectively introduce an American perspective into an article with worldwide scope. The problem though is that the creator of the article has been indefinitely blocked and won't be around to develop the article should the first option be selected. If editors still find the second option preferable, I suggest closing this dicussion as a "keep" and starting a 'merge' discussion at List of highest-grossing films where the editors involved in that article can decide whether to merge or not. While I appreciate it is only a list of numbers to some people, it is an FA rated list and in the top 1000 articles on Wikipedia so any major decisions affecting the scope of the article need to be carefully examined. Betty Logan (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Any information in the article could be included in List of highest-grossing films, if not there already. The movie business now is totally global so I don't know if the concept of "overseas markets" for films is even notable. Borock (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. What is meant by "overseas markets" when we should be following WP:WORLDVIEW?  This seems to be a list of top grossing films outside of North America or something, which has dubious notability, and difficult to source.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - overseas from where? As seen from Chiswick, that'd include Hollywood... Fails GNG; hopeless list criteria. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per . - SchroCat (talk) 12:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The sea is not relevant to this topic. It's like trying to decide whether Wikipedia is overseas or not. Warden (talk) 13:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge Might be notable as a section of List of highest-grossing films, but does not warrant a separate article. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This keeps coming up, but no-one has explained yet why it would be a good idea to merge into the List of highest grossing films. The List of highest grossing films adopts a global view and explicitly just uses worldwide data i.e. that is the criteria for the inclusion of the data on the chart. Why would we stick a chart of non-worldwide data that adopts the view of one particular country, into such an article? The scope of this data is clearly different to the scope of the List of highest grossing films. If you believe the data is actually notable then vote to keep it, but if you want to merge it will please explain why it would be appropriate to merge it into List of highest grossing films? Betty Logan (talk) 14:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per Betty. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Betty Logan. - Fanthrillers (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Besides its usefullness on Wikipedia, the page also leverages the extreme bias toward American articles and points of view on the film related articles. CinephileMatt (talk) 04:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument. Bias is resolved by unbiased articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename. It is pretty standard in US and Canadian sources to cover box office grosses in terms of US/Canada gross, gross from everywhere except the US and Canada, and worldwide gross.  For example, www.boxofficemojo.com and www.the-numbers.com, two box office tracking websites, run weekly columns discussing box office gross from non-US/Canada markets ( and  appear to be the most recent of those articles at the time I write this).  The box office numbers in the article aren't merely created by subtracting the US/Canada gross from the worldwide gross, but are a subject of discussion on there own.  Even though the subject is only discussed in US/Canadian sources (as far as I know), I believe it is a notable topic that passes WP:GNG.  WP:WORLDVIEW is not a valid reason to delete the article, as that essay is in no way saying that subjects should be deleted due to recieving coverage in only one or two countries.  A topic covered by reliable sources is appropirate for inclusion in Wikipedia even if those sources are only from a couple countries.  However, WP:WORLDVIEW is a good reason not to merge this list with List of highest-grossing films, as this list is about a topic of interest primarily to the US and Canada and primarily covered in US/Canadian sources, and merging it into an article with worldwide scope would not make sense to me.  I would oppose merging the list, and instead think it should be kept as its own article.  Also, about the name of the article, it is clearly mischosen.  The topic as covered in US/Canadian sources is the gross box office of films originating in any country, but only from movie theaters in countries other than the United States and Canada.  The article should be renamed to make that more clear, and an explanation of the exact scope should be added to the lead of the article.  A lot of the "delete" !votes seem to be focusing on the confusion arising from the topic's name, but a poor name is an easily fixed problem and not a valid reason for deleting an article (admittedly, the intended scope of the article was probably not clear to anyone who doesn't regularly read US/Canadian box office sources, but hopefully it is clear from the sources I linked to . . . again, this is a pretty standard way of presenting box office number in US/Canadian sources). Calathan (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm, if I understand you (only just, I think), this is a technical subdivision of data where the topic from an ordinary human's point of view (say, a WP reader's) is worldwide viewing of films, but for reasons incalculable, perhaps Americentricity, the data are split into odd lumps, and this is about one such lump. If so, the !votes are right but for the wrong reason. However I suspect that any duplication of this lump into a WP article is based on WP:ITEXISTS and WP:ITSUSEFUL, which WP doesn't buy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm kind of baffled as to why you think WP:ITEXISTS applies here. The whole point of what I wrote is that this is a subject written about in reliable sources (the two weekly articles I mentioned).  I'm not saying it should be kept merely because it exists, but because it has significant coverage in reliable sources, and thus passes WP:GNG. Calathan (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this is probably covered by WP:NOT. Both BOM and The Numbers follow up their domestic reports with the overseas reports as part of their global box office coverage, but while they have U.S. (nominal and adjusted) and the worldwide charts (see BOM and The Numbers), they don't actually include "overseas" charts; the concept doesn't seem to exist as a data unit in its own right. A chart is basically a list article right? As per WP:LISTN a list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. In other words, for this chart to be notable we should be able to track down an analogous version of it somewhere, just like we can do with the worldwide and U.S. charts. If we can't fulfil that criteria it should be deleted. Betty Logan (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think WP:NOT is applicable here either. These aren't just reports on single events, but regular columns that provide analysis.  About actually finding the "overseas" or "international" chart, I tried looking for that and so far couldn't find it.  I'm very certain that IMDB had such a chart as of a few years ago (it had three charts, US/Canada grosses, non-US/Canada grosses, and worldwide grosses).  However, when I checked yesterday, I couldn't find any charts of top box office grosses on IMDB at all.  Either I just couldn't find them, or they got rid of them after they aquired Boxofficemojo.  On Boxofficemojo, I could find highest non-US/Canada gross by year, but I didn't find highest non-US/Canada gross of all time.  The articles regularly make reference to films being among the highest grossing of all time outside the US, so I feel certain that such a chart must exist somewhere (i.e. the person writing the articles has access to it).  I'll try to find it again when I get a chance, since I would be very surprised if it isn't available somewhere.  Regardless though, the subject of how much films gross outside the US/Canada seems to be a notable topic in my opinion . . . I'm not sure though that this article would really work well as anything except a list, so having a clear list to directly source it to would certainly help. Calathan (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It turns out that IMDB does still have their lists of highest grossing films in the US, non-US, and worldwide (I'm pretty sure when they say US they actually include Canada, as I think that is the normal way of reporting numbers in the US and Canada). The "non-US" list is here, and looks to be more up to date than the current Wikipedia article.  For Boxofficemojo, I still couldn't find such a list.  They report non-US/Canada numbers for each weekend , the highest non-US and Canada opening weekends of all time , and the highest non-US/Canada grosses for each year , but apparently do not have an all time highest grossing non-US/Canada list. I don't know if the IMDB list would be appropriate for sourcing this article . . . I know in general IMDB isn't used as a source, but I don't think that list is user submitted content, so maybe it would be acceptable (it would seem odd to say it isn't acceptable but Boxofficemojo is, when Boxofficemojo is a subsidiary of IMDB). Calathan (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2012 (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.