Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing films based on television series


 * 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 merge‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to List of films based on television programs. Liz Read! Talk! 22:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing films based on television series

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

An RfC on the talk page found no evidence that the list is based on any inclusion criteria or reliable sources. In summary, it is a mess of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television,  and Lists.  AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. This good faith nomination and the related RFC seem to mistake a few things:
 * WP:CALC explains that routine calculations do not count as OR, so I don't see the OR or SYNTH claim.
 * One of the comments in the RFC mentioned that no other list had one of the movies at #1. However, in addition to the CALC note above, lists have always been allowed to be incomplete, and the list does not need to be covered in full elsewhere, per WP:NLIST.
 * The inclusion criteria seems pretty clear as an "X of Y" list, and though NLIST does not require the groupings of "X of Y" list to be covered elsewhere, in this case, "films based on tv shows" is covered in many places.
 * The data is sourced to BoxOfficeMojo, which is generally reliable for such data.
 * There may be a little cleanup needed on some of the sub-lists lower down, and there may be some referencing needed for the "continuity" column, but overall this is a fine list. &mdash;siro&chi;o 10:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We have to do better than The inclusion criteria seems pretty clear. Specifically, WP:LISTCRITERIA mandates that they be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. I put it to you that this is not the case here. If they are, you should be able to spell them out explicitly and point to the sources they are based on.And respectfully, it seems that you do not quite understand the issues brought up in the RfC, as your counterpoints do little to address them. The WP:OR/WP:SYNTH objections have little-to-nothing to do with WP:CALC in this instance, for one thing. For another, Box Office Mojo is certainly a reliable source for the grosses themselves, but that's not the point of contention here—which very clearly spelled out in saying Yes I see the existing refs, refs to what are essentially database entries for dollar figures for various movies. But nowhere do I see any refs relevant to the claimed article-subject. I see a ref claiming a gross of $791,115,104 for Mission: Impossible – Fallout, but I see no ref anywhere suggesting that this movie is #1 on this list, or any other list. That is pure original research.Moreover, while you say that NLIST does not require the groupings of "X of Y" list to be covered elsewhere, in this case, "films based on tv shows" is covered in many places, what's required here isn't sources on that concept but sources on the topic of that subgroup of films compared to each other on the basis of their box office grosses. You seem to be under the impression that as long as a particular grouping of films is covered by sources, it would be acceptable and appropriate for Wikipedia editors to construct a list comparing the grosses of the films included in that set, even if no sources do. That's the part that is WP:Original research.I'll note that there actually does exist at least one source that covers the overarching topic here: the All Time Worldwide Box Office for Based on TV Movies list at The Numbers (website). But that list does it differently; while the Wikipedia article states that Films such as Demon Slayer - Mugen Train, Alvin and the Chipmunks, Transformers are not included due to being adaptated from other media to television series before being adapted into films., the latter two are in fact included in the list over at The Numbers.  And of course if we base our entire list on a single source, we are essentially acting as a mirror, which of course Wikipedia is WP:NOT supposed to be.This list is very obviously the result of a bunch of WP:Original research. The "Peak" column is unsourced and likely unsourceable. The "Based on original TV series with year" column is certainly sourceable, but it is unsourced and was almost certainly not based on sources (and definitely not on sources relevant to the overarching topic) in the first place. The "Continuity" column is pure WP:Original research, and the entire "Top 50 highest grossing films based on television series that are part of the same continuity" table is in turn an absolute mess of the same (as is then obviously the "Highest grossing films based on television series that are not part of the same continuity" table).It is plain to see that this article, as so many box office lists before it, was inspired by the only such list on Wikipedia that is actually of high quality: List of highest-grossing films (a WP:Featured list). The problem with the proliferation of these lists is that they are created without understanding what it is that makes that list work, and they often just copy the structure without considering whether it is appropriate for the newly-created list—or indeed, considering whether the new list should exist at all. The result is that we have a plethora of poorly maintained, straight-up bad lists with myriad problems including—mainly—sourcing issues. This is, well, churnalism—or I suppose online one would call it content farming. It is the assembly of pure WP:RAWDATA by way of WP:Original research at the whims of Wikipedia editors who have mined box office databases for the data and come up with a new angle from which to slice it more-or-less arbitrarily. It is a scourge. TompaDompa (talk) 23:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 23:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Dissolve it in acetone (aka delete) as a blatant unencyclopedic cross-categorization. There's no end to the type of way one could break out subsets of films to make "List of highest-grossing films that satisfy random criterion X".  This one is particularly arbitrary and should not stay.  35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ping for the record the participants in Talk:List of highest-grossing films based on television series (besides myself):, , , , and . I have also left a message at User talk:98.228.137.44 since I don't think it is possible to ping IP users. TompaDompa (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of films based on television programs. Just add a column there to show how much money the films make if that's seen as something that needs to be listed.   D r e a m Focus  03:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A good ATD, I'd support this. &mdash;siro&chi;o 03:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a terrible idea in theory, but have you seen the state of that article? It's a complete mess. Seeing as the entries are not films but the television series they are based on, adding grosses is not really feasible without restructuring the list from the ground up. TompaDompa (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete article, merge the first table to List of films based on television programs. The article is a mish-mash of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE data with borderline notability. Whilst films based on TV shows do tend to be regarded as a "grouping", I think there is only a very weak case to be made for this in relation to box-office analysis. There is a chart at https://www.boxofficemojo.com/genre/sg3839815937, but not much beyond that. If we accept the notability of the topic, that leaves two problems: the first is that Box Office Mojo does not seem to be applying its criteria rigorously (The Addams Family while more famous as a TV show originated from a comic strip is included, while The Lone Ranger more famous as a TV show started out as a radio show and is omitted). So if the list is retained there is an inclusion criteria problem that must be resolved. The second problem is that all the other lists in the article (besides the first) are WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No sources appear to be collating data on which TV-based movie was the highest grossing of the year, or which TV-based film was the highest-grossing prior to Jackass 3D. As TompaDompa states above, the format has been leveraged from the List of highest-grossing films (where the various tables make a lot more sense in terms of reliable source coverage) and then applied indiscriminately. Even if the article is retained, these secondary tables need to be junked, which wouldn't leave much of an article. There is a compromise here: merge the first table into List of films based on television programs and the outstanding issues with the table can be resolved at that article (retaining the option to delete the table if they can't be resolved), and the rest of the article should be deleted. Betty Logan (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per arguments above. 2601:249:9301:D570:463:8F0D:7A59:36FC (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I have move it to the films based on television series page as suggested above when should the page get deleted Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * merge as its own section i would support to keep it but this list lacks of many movies so it would be better to merge it to the main list Braganza (talk) 09:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge the first table to List of films based on television programs. There seems to be at least a weak basis to include the first list in another list article (if there are rather trivial content disputes, they can be resolved at the target article's talk page). The rest fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR per the analysis by TompaDompa and Betty Logan. I specifically reject the WP:CALC argument – the claim that items on the list are based on "routine calculations". (Note, TompaDompa mentioned that pinging IP users may be impossible, which is true, but I did not receive TompaDompa's notification either because I have specifically disabled mention notifications. If my attention is required, anyone is free to invite me to a discussion through my user talk page.) Politrukki (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2023 (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.