Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of actors by total box-office gross


 * 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 Valid arguments for deletion (information copied straight from the primary source, no secondary sorces to back it up, no credible reason to maintain a mirror of that data, questions over the intellectual property involved) outweigh arguments for keep (WP:ILIKEIT and "meh", basically). Guy (Help!) 18:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

List of actors by total box-office gross

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

by definition constantly out of date list, using exactly 1 source. http://boxofficemojo.com/people/?view=Actor&sort=sumgross&order=DESC&p=.htm

If all we are doing is copying a different list, using exactly the inclusion criteria they chose (movies, excluding cameo, excluding voice work, US (&canada?) domestic gross only) it seems like this is a probable copyvio (even though the underlying facts are PD, the aggregation and criteria of those facts may not be)

WP:NOT a list of trivia that can easily be found elsewhere.

Also note that there are zero incoming links to this article, making it nothing more than google bait that can be provided elsewhere. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nom, no reason for this list of trivia to have its own wiki page if all of the information is available at the source websiteI feel like a tourist (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - Tagged for CSD. Article based on a single source duplicates the content unnecessarily and without concern for accuracy, data from other countries, etc. More importantly, however, it consists entirely of data lifted from its one source and thus a copyvio. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  23:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Declined G12 - none of the prose is a copyvio - an actor's name, the number of films, and the money may be the same - but they are just simple facts and would always match up, no matter where the data came from. Just let the AfD run it's course.  Ron h jones  (Talk) 00:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Let's see some more substantive discussion: the copyvio claim appears to be a non-starter, as is "the information is available elsewhere" (kind of a requirement to be verifiable and avoid being WP:OR). postdlf (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would not be so sure about copyvio being a non starter. There are many actors/movies not included in the source list. Duplicating exactly their content, using exactly their criteria certainly can be a copyvio. For example see Feist v. Rural "In regard to collections of facts, O'Connor states that copyright can only apply to the creative aspects of collection: the creative choice of what data to include or exclude, the order and style in which the information is presented, etc., but not on the information itself." and "Therefore, you can rewrite a recipe in your own words and publish it without infringing copyrights. But, if you rewrote every recipe from a particular cookbook, you might still be found to have infringed the author's copyright in the choice of recipes and their "coordination" and "presentation", even if you used different words;" also internationally "Compilations of data or other material, whether in machine readable or other form, which by reason of the selection or arrangement of their contents constitute intellectual creations shall be protected as such. Such protection, which shall not extend to the data or material itself, shall be without prejudice to any copyright subsisting in the data or material itself." - In this case the selection criteria are fairly specific. US & Canada. Domestic revenue only. Exclude voice. Exclude Cameo. Updated by the source authors determination. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There's nothing creative about the arrangement of this list (which is by $ amount by default, and otherwise sortable), nor its particular expression (just names and numbers in a table). So all that would leave us as potentially copyrightable is selection. As copyright law does not protect mere formulas, the selection itself would have to require creative decisionmaking (such as "most influential", "important", or any subjective assessment of quality that you'd see in editor's choice lists like this one), but none of the criteria appear to be clearly subjective. So if you hang your hat too much on that argument you're not likely to accomplish anything here, because it's not especially persuasive (as the declined speedy deletion should have already told you). Which is why I recommended the discussion focus on other issues. (PS: It's bad form to dump a wall of copy and pasted text into a thread, for many, many reasons. The boldface didn't help, either.) postdlf (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: This is a list that some people would find interesting. As I don't use many websites other than Wikipedia, it is a great list for someone like me. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: "It's interesting" is specifically one of the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: "Any subject or topic may be of interest to someone, somewhere. And on the converse, there are any number of subjects or topics which an individual editor may not care about. However, personal interest or apathy is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article." --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  22:07, 23 January 2014 (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.