Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 1971 box office number-one films in the United States


 * 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 delete. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

List of 1971 box office number-one films in the United States

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I suspect this is a hoax article, along with the other box office number one lists from 1960-1981, all created by the same person. BoxOfficeMojo records only go back as far as 1982 and I'm unable to find any other reliable references. The presence of And Now for Something Completely Different on the list as the box office number one for three weeks is a giveaway. The film wasn't released in the USA until August 1972 and failed to find much of an audience. The claim on this list that it reached number one after its second week in release is an invention to imply authority. Barry Wom (talk) 10:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Another giveaway - the inclusion of Get Carter which was apparently "poorly promoted" in the USA and released to drive-ins at the bottom of a double bill. Barry Wom (talk) 10:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Pinging as someone who has worked with box office content extensively. She may have an informed answer about this. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 14:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 14:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 14:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment It is possible that some of these figures are fabricated or mistakes, but I don't think we can assume all of them are just because Box Office Mojo doesn't go that far back. I am all for removing unsourced data if it can't be checked out but it is fairly trivial (albeit expensive) to check this data using the Variety archives at https://varietyultimate.com/. The only snag is that it costs you $60 per 50 views (next to useless for a project that involves searching through 52 editions per year), or $600 for unlimited annual access. I think our aim though should be verifying this data before embarking on a huge deletion campaign. Betty Logan (talk) 14:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if we could get Variety premium access. This mentions Tim Gray writing about the archives. Maybe one of us could appeal to him for membership to verify this and help with other parts of Wikipedia? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have been googling around seeing if there are any other lists and came across this blogger here: https://boxofficeboffo.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/reboot/. He confirms that our lists and Variety's are about "approximately 50 percent different". I can hazard a guess at what has happened here. Up to the 1980s Variety used the historic gross rental metric (which it confusingly labelled the "box-office gross" at the time). However, the gross rental and box-office gross (as documented on Box Office Mojo) are related but very different metrics. Editors often fail to understand the distinction and conflate them. It has led to quite a few pre-1980 film charts becoming corrupted. It may be simpler (and more ethical?) to follow Barry's suggestion because at the moment our pre-1980 charts do not seem fit for purpose. Even if we get access to the Variety archives we are still basically looking at starting from scratch. Betty Logan (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I reckon you may have been generous here by suggesting that the editor responsible for the pages in question was confused by metrics - pages which have been little altered since their creation. There have been several requests for a source for the information, all of which have gone unanswered. The editor in question seems hardly reliable as they have been indulging in petty vandalism as recently as a few days ago. I picked 1971 as an example as it's inconceivable that the two British films I mentioned made any dent whatsoever in the American box office charts, never mind being number one for three weeks apiece. By extension, I'd argue that without sources every list from 1960-1981 should be deleted. Barry Wom (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Seeing the litany of warnings on his talk page his edits are clearly a cause for concern. It's depressing to say this but nobody can rely on this data as it stands. Even if we can get access to the correct data I think these articles are going to have to be completely redone. Betty Logan (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The numbers were either tampered with or are utter nonsense. I've counted ten occurences of thousands and ones 3-digit groups being the same but transposed (examples in article: 4,395,593; 3,593,395; 1,294,924...). The chance of this being true for a random 7-digit number is approx. 0.3%. The chance of 10 such numbers occuring out of 52 is, for our intents and purposes, a fat zero (or to be exact, ~0.000000000000000890805). There are also repetitive patterns of numbers connected in a diagonal pattern on the keyboard numpad (e.g. 2-4-9, 3-5-9) that lead me to believe someone was mashing keys, but taking care not to be too obvious. Now, whether this is Simpsonguy1987's original creation or it stems from a more legitimate source, I cannot tell, but these numbers were made up.  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  03:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like has got a bit of explaining to do. I don't want to accuse an editor of fabricating data without proof but at this stage I think it is important for him to tell us exactly where he got this data from. That aside the articles need to be scrapped, but not before we get to the bottom of what's happened here. Betty Logan (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The editor in question has been editing Wikipedia for more than five years and has yet to touch a talk page. Their own talk page is a litany of warnings about adding unsourced content. I suspect the desired explanation will not be forthcoming. &mdash;  Warren.  ‘ talk, 16:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Daß Wölf's statistical evidence is damning, and would certainly be more than enough to secure a fraud conviction if these numbers appeared in company accounts or a tax return. We operate to a lower standard of proof than the criminal law (at least in any jurisdiction where the rule of law is taken seriously), so it is enough for us to delete this. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * At this point, G3 may be appropriate. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * At this point, G3 may be appropriate. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2018 (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.