Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing animated films of the 1980s


 * 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 keep.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 22:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing animated films of the 1980s

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Wikipedia is not a box office database. We have way too many box office lists (see Template:Film box office), and we are unable to maintain them to an acceptable standard. This is the result of editors coming up with new ways of slicing the data more or less arbitrarily, creating new lists for each. Here we have what I think is a clear example of when new lists should not have been created, since they blatantly and unnecessarily WP:CFORK List of highest-grossing animated films by covering a temporally restricted subset thereof. For this reason, I WP:BOLDLY performed a WP:Blank and redirect to List of highest-grossing animated films. That was however reverted by an editor who thought this should be discussed first, so here we are. Deleting and redirecting both seem like valid outcomes to me, but there's nothing worth merging and I don't think the titles are plausible search terms, so my first choice would be deletion. TompaDompa (talk) 02:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 02:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 02:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm skeptical of the accuracy of some of these box office figures. For example, An American Tail is the 3rd highest gross of the 1980s with a worldwide gross of $84,542,002, while Oliver & Company is listed as 2nd highest with a worldwide gross of $100,000,000. It's too bad I didn't go see the latter film in its theatrical release; then it would have had a worldwide gross of $100,000,005. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you're assuming too many significant figures. Not all of them are going to be exact dollar amounts. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 06:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The information is not found at List of highest-grossing animated films. Click the column to sort by year.  That list won't hold everything, so it only shows those films that made at least half a billion dollars at the theaters.  Any information that seems outdated you can click on it, look at the infobox on the main article for the film, and then update it.  All information is referenced.   D r e a m Focus  17:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I also like to remind people that WP:LISTN is two paragraphs long, please read the second paragraph and not just quote the first. The first paragraph has in it: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if. One reason, but not the only acceptable reason.  This is a list that fulfills recognized informational and navigation purposes.   D r e a m Focus  13:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Nominator argument rings hollow. These are not lists that need to be actively maintained. 1980s films aren't going to magically grow higher box office sales. I don't see this as a specifically disallowed WP:CFORK situation either. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 06:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well obviously not magically, but movies do get re-releases occasionally. TompaDompa (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment from nominator I think the editors arguing in favour of keeping these lists are kind of missing the point. It's obviously possible for us to mine sources for this data and construct lists—and that would be equally true for List of highest-grossing animated films of 1983–1987, List of highest-grossing animated films of 1985–1994, List of highest-grossing animated films of 1987–1993, and List of highest-grossing animated films of 1989–2001—but why should we? Wikipedia is not a box office database, and even actual box office databases such as Box Office Mojo and The Numbers don't keep lists like these. What justification is there for Wikipedia to have these lists of pure statistics about arbitrarily chosen cross-categorizations? TompaDompa (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Dividing things by decade is not arbitrary. We have whole articles that characterize decades, e.g. 1980s. If you want to have an RfC about how such lists should be subdivided, I would encourage that, but I think the decade option would be overwhelmingly favored. The list is also not "pure statistics". There is value added by showing the animated films that were most successful and thereby most era-defining for the decades in question. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 18:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per the following observations:
 * The lists appear to fail WP:LISTN. Unless I am overlooking something, the articles do not have sources establishing the notability of these groupings. The sources are generally for individual film grosses.
 * The lists are WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Just because a list of the highest-grossing animated films may be notable, and a list of highest-grossing 80s films may be notable, that does not necessarily make a list of 1980s animated films notable.
 * Betty Logan (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep This information is encyclopedic and adequately sourced (though the sourcing could perhaps use some improvement), and per Dream Focus I think the article is more specific and less arbitrary than the nom suggests. I also disagree with the suggestion by the nom that these lists will become problematic due to a last of maintenance; these lists may change a bit, but not very much, and certainly not to the point where maintenance will become a logistical problem. (And even if it did, that wouldn't be a reason to delete). — Hunter Kahn 20:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, as it is useful and ecyclopedic informationJackattack1597 (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I notice a few of the comments above favor retention on the grounds that the information is "encyclopedic". By this I presume they mean that the information is informative and sourceable, as opposed to being trivia. I don't thing anyone would dispute that this information is encyclopedic: many of these films and their grosses appear on other notable lists on Wikipedia, and there lies the rub: the applicable criteria here is notability, not how "encyclopedic" something is. If merely being encyclopedic satisfied the requirements for inclusion there would be no need for policies such as WP:LISTN; that is the relevant policy here and nobody in favor of inclusion has so far has explained how these lists satisfy notability. Betty Logan (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per Betty Logan. I could not find any subgroup/set of films in reliable sources to pass WP:LISTN. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete all. I cannot see how these lists meet WP:LISTN; the groupings are not themselves notable. Optionally redirect to List of highest-grossing animated films. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as I believe WP:LISTN is beimg misinterpreted here. No one disputes that the parent article passes the WP:LISTN guideline and these decade lists are more realistically classified as sub pages of that page rather than a new topic. For example they would be a relevant inclusion to that main page on all animated films but page split would be necessary so we get the status quo. So as splits from the main article Im not seeing a valid reason for deletion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 03:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not think it is correct to describe these articles as sub-lists of List of highest-grossing animated films. These decade lists are not an "expansion" of the information at the parent article, they are literally new information formulated by applying extra criteria that does not exist in the main article. For example, while you can source the grosses for each of the films on the list the actual chart itself is unsourced. The ordering of the chart is created via WP:Original research, namely because these charts don't exist off Wikipedia. How do I know The Black Cauldron is really ranked at #12 without a source to tell me the film is ranked #12? In reality it probably isn't ranked #12 because if you look closely at many of these grosses they only represent the US-Canada box-office and completely omit the overseas gross. These lists are telling readers made-up information that almost certainly is not correct, and the reason this is occurring is because WP:LISTN is not been applied. Betty Logan (talk) 04:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not original research to list things by the amount of money they make and number them in that order. And whatever referenced information is used in the main article, should be used here.  I just checked the reference in the infobox at The Little Mermaid article and found it had a different number than what the infobox has had for months now and made a correction there.  The number listed in this article was correct, while the main article had an error in that case.  Update: The information in the infobox of the film articles and the references given don't line up.  I have brought the issue Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film.   D r e a m Focus  14:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that box office mojo works fine for total profits for the newer films, but the films from the 80's it only list domestic. When a proper reliable source is found for the main film articles, then that reference and information should be copied over to the list entries that don't have one.   D r e a m Focus  14:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not original research for a Wikipedia list to not be replicated 1 to 1 somewhere else, otherwise many lists on Wkipedia should be deleted. I think that's just completeness. Dege31 (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is original research to say that something is the 10th highest-grossing film based on your own, flawed, data collation. There are no sources for any of the rankings here. They are editorially assigned ranks based on incomplete grosses. The list is a work of fiction. Betty Logan (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you feel that way about List of highest-grossing animated films, List of highest-grossing films, or any of the many other such list in Category:Lists of highest-grossing films? There are 70 lists in that category and its subcategory of regions.  If the ranking column wasn't there, would you object to these lists?   D r e a m Focus  21:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am commenting on this specific article because this list is a candidate for deletion. If any of the other lists in that category are brought to AfD I will give them due consideration. I also don't fully understand the point you are making by comparing this list to a meticulously sourced featured list such as List of highest-grossing films which clearly satisfies WP:LISTN. I would not vote to delete that list. This list does not come out of such a comparison very well. List of highest-grossing animated films is on shakier ground because some of the tables appear synthesized, but overall at first glance appears to satisfy LISTN. I would not vote to delete it but I might be in favor of removing some of the tables. The thing that troubles me most here is that anyone visiting this page simply isn't going to leave it with the information they came for. The grosses are incomplete, the ranks are inaccurate, it is misinformation. As for your question, if it were possible to properly source the positions in the chart then there is a strong possibility it would satisfy LISTN. They are not tautological, but you can usually make a case for notability for information that is comprehensively sourced. Betty Logan (talk) 04:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per discussion. The encyclopedia is much better for them as historical articles of cultural trends, interests, and completeness of factual information. Nothing broken here, and maintenance of decade pages consists mainly of keeping vandalism checked. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per accomplishing informational purpose as listed in WP:LISTN. List of X by decade is a common format and not arbitrary. I am personally unconvinced that the parent article should be kept but these singled out for deletion. Dege31 (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:LISTCRIT. That page specifically states that lists do not have to pass notability standards to be encyclopedic, because they fulfill a role that creating smaller articles would not do. In this case, having lists of older years is good, because not all films will be on the main list, nor should they. That doesn't mean that it isn't worthy to be added, as these lists are important to show the history of animation. Swordman97  talk to me  07:44, 27 November 2021 (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.