Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 1982 box office number-two 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   delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

List of 1982 box office number-two films in the United States

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Arbitrary & unnecessary list; violates WP:NOT; Wikipedia is not a place for arbitrary (and miscellaneous) lists of stuff mhking (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Not only is it a list it's a useless list Jamesofur (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Query not defending the article, but I'm not sure I understand any of the reasons being offered for deletion. It has a very strict scope – and would seem to me therefore to be neither arbitrary nor miscellaneous. The only argument for deletion from WP:NOT I could imagine applying here is WP:IINFO, a policy which is disputed. Skomorokh  19:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. My dictionary defines "arbitrary" as "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system," which is precisely how this looks to me (that is, the list itself is arbitrary, not the process of choosing which items went on the list). Hairhorn (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I recall at least one debate on a similar list. As lists go, this is a big pile of "number-two".  The problem with this and others is it is truly useless and, worse, boring trivia, presented badly with zero context.  "Did you know that 'Shoot the Moon'" was second with $1.8 million during the third week of February 1982"?  No, I didn't know that, so what.  The obvious question is "So what was #1 that week?"  The authors felt no need to mention which film outdid #2 film was the same week or how much more of a gross would have made it #1.  Of course, many of these #2's moved up to #1, but the authors didn't think that was important either.  One could make an equally useless a list of the 8th most popular films of each week in a particular year.   This stupid idea for a list could be usefully replaced by a Top 5 for each week, where at least we'd have something that illustrates the rise and decline of film sales.  Mandsford (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Very arbitary, uses a single source. Not sure if its even a RS... Admrboltz (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand per Mandsford's suggestions.  Looking at the arguments: What is meant by arbitrary?Selecting no. 2 instead of no.15, say? --to me, that appears rational, the opposite of arbitrary. . "Second best" is different from "some random rank". It seems perfectly sensible to go down one notch, though not o f course to continue indefinitely. "8th" is a straw man argument--this is for second, not eighth.  I would not  defend 8th, nor I think would anyone take it into their head to write it. I do not believe this is unverifiable. If no.  1 box office films can be verified, so can this. "Useless" is irrelevant as a factor, just as "useful" would be--they are equally non-reasons. Same for "boring".  I am unsure Who ever said that all of the content of an encyclopedia is expected to be interesting to any one person? "trivia" is in the eye of the beholder--in this context,  where it does not seem to match any of the usual meanings of that much-misused word, it seems to mean idontlikeit. I agree it's not as essential to have this list as a list of no.1s, but the criterion "essential" would only apply to an abridged encyclopedia. Whatever Wikipedia may be,  it certainly is not an abridged encyclopedia.      Mandsford makes some very good suggestions, though,for expanding and improving the list--I suggest he start in.    DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 22 August 2009 (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.