- 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 no consensus to delete. There is a clear absence of consensus for deletion, and there is actually more support for keeping this article. bd2412 T 00:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
List of box office records set by Avengers: Infinity War
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- List of box office records set by Avengers: Infinity War ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This list is just "listify-ing" the same prose info that exists at Avengers: Infinity War#Box office. Per a few discussions ( here and here), there is no need to separate out the records at this time, in this format (as the info is not unruly as prose currently) and does not give any additional info that does not exist in the prose. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 17:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Violation of WP:PROMO, basically a self-aggrandizing article that doesn't accomplish anything that can't be stated in the main article. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 00:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Pretty much hosting BOXOFFICECRUFT/IMDb trivia. This really isn't needed here at all. Nate • ( chatter) 03:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep There
have
been
other Wikipedia articles for separating and elaborating on more records than is exhaustively possible on the main movie article. I will not solely rely on those articles as
other stuff exists, but to demonstrate that this is not a new phenomenon. Particularly after Avengers: Infinity War kept breaking records,
the
news
media
certainly
took
notice
and
continued
writing
articles
on
the
subject. Not every movie that is released has this type of coverage in numerous
reliable sources relating to the records that it has broken for its Box Office Debut. I argue that due to this consistent media coverage and the
general notability independent of the movie warrants this separate article. It is not in violation of
WP:PROMO as it was not intended for promotion, but to provide an encyclopedic explanation of the various box office records that Infinity War has broken. Nearly all of the records have solid sourcing behind them, are not published with Marvel's PR team, and instead written by volunteer editors seeking to
contribute to the encyclopedia. That is pretty much the opposite of
WP:PROMO. This type of article cannot be simply merged with the parent movie article as it has broken more records than is feasible to include in the parent article, and if forced to merge, would
tip the balance for content already on the movie article. I recommend that this article be kept for those reasons.
Tutelary (
talk) 04:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Making an article touting the success of a recent movie falls into PR material regardless of whether general outlets cover it independently. If Infinity War remains a seminal movie in another decade or two I might see the case for an article like this. However, there's nothing special about a movie this expensive breaking box office records, after all the population of the Earth continues to increase while movie makers continue to consolidate ever more money into big superhero movies. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 05:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Then we have a totally different view of what PR material is. When I think of PR material, I think of
conflicts of interest,
genuine promotion from a PR team, and
attempting to influence Wikipedia editors through legal action. Putting 100% true, backed up box office records on a single page is not PR material. That's just an encyclopedia being an encyclopedia.
Tutelary (
talk) 06:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that detailing the success of a film is in no way promotional. That just doesn't make sense. Do you want us to pretend that there was no positive response to any film in any way so as to avoid sounding like we are promoting any film? - adamstom97 ( talk) 06:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Then we have a totally different view of what PR material is. When I think of PR material, I think of
conflicts of interest,
genuine promotion from a PR team, and
attempting to influence Wikipedia editors through legal action. Putting 100% true, backed up box office records on a single page is not PR material. That's just an encyclopedia being an encyclopedia.
Tutelary (
talk) 06:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Weak keepI am not going to argue strongly for this, but I do see some value in it. I personally see this sort of article as a separate thing from the actual film box office section. So regardless of what that section covers in terms of box office records, do I think that someone will get somethign out of reading this article as is? Well, if it is well maintained and focuses on actually significant records, then I think it could be very useful for someone interested specifically in the box office of films who is looking for a professional compilation of them for this film. The big concern I have is the list falling into trivia, so I would want to be sure that whoever is maintaining the page has a clear idea of what sort of records are actually worth the time of our readers. - adamstom97 ( talk) 04:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Changing my vote to Keep. The more I've thought of it, and especially after reading GoneIn60's coment below, the more potential I see in this article. I think there may be some who are underestimating it a bit simply because it isn't a very common thing. One thing to think about: are you sure every record listed here is really already at the film article? And if so, do you believe it is going to stay that way? Box office sections often get a bit unruly when the film is in theatres, but over time they are one of those things that people are going to want to get right down for better readability (especially for a GA, which will apply here). - adamstom97 ( talk) 08:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, WP:NOTSTATS, and the fact the info already exists in the appropriate spot: the film's article. — Joeyconnick ( talk) 04:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep – While I didn't cross-check all the items in the list, the second one I checked, "Biggest April opening weekend" under US & Canada, wasn't mentioned in that context anywhere in the article. The argument that it could be mentioned is irrelevant. Once the number of records grows to a certain point, as is often the case with many blockbuster films, a list can be quite helpful in separating out the film's accomplishments. Trying to incorporate dozens of records in prose becomes tedious, not to mention the negative impact it begins to have on the article's readability. In fact, having a list that you can put in a hatnote at the top of the "Box office" section might alleviate the need to bloat the article, and instead allow editors the option to offload some of the minor accomplishments to the list. Tons of potential on a keep here. The WP:PROMO claim is a stretch at best, and the WP:NOTSTATS claim isn't even in the same ballpark considering the data has context and references. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 07:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - This list is well sourced and too large to be contained in the main article. Argento Surfer ( talk) 13:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per
WP:LISTCRUFT.
BOVINEBOY
2008 13:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- @
Bovineboy2008: - This list meets the criteria given at LISTCRUFT for when a standalone list is generally appropriate. Which one(s) of the 12 meanings listed apply to this list?
Argento Surfer (
talk) 15:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- #1: The list was created just for the sake of having such a list - There was no building of this list in the article, and most of this is a regurgitation of what is on BoxOfficeMojo.
- #2: The list is of interest to a very limited number of people - Only pertains to people direly attached to the box office records of one individual film.
- #11: The list's membership is volatile and requires a disproportionate amount of effort to keep up to date. - These records will either be broken by another film at some point (probably by its own sequel), or will be added to by more and more specific criteria: "Highest-grossing superhero film outside the US and Canada market" could become "Highest-grossing superhero film featuring characters from previous stand-alone films outside the US and Canada market" BOVINEBOY 2008 15:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- @
Bovineboy2008: - This list meets the criteria given at LISTCRUFT for when a standalone list is generally appropriate. Which one(s) of the 12 meanings listed apply to this list?
Argento Surfer (
talk) 15:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep All referenced and valid accomplishments that wouldn't all fit in the main article, so as in other cases of this Tutelary mentioned, it needs its own separate article. Dream Focus 17:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I would like to point out a few of the records in the list not at the film article pertain to those the film's rating. Specifically to those, per
WP:FILMRATING, we don't allow mention of a film's rating on a normal article, so I don't see why we should be mentioning records for them here, especially since there is nothing noteworthy about it being PG-13 (unlike say Deadpool, where it being R-rated and earning what it did was notable). So you take those away, and again, you left with essentially the exact same content at the film article, just in prose, which is just another reason why I don't feel this article should exist. I would also like to clarify that I am not against separate box office records lists in general (as I know some other do exist), but in this particular instance, I do not see the necessity for the split at this time. -
Favre1fan93 (
talk) 18:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- I also thought of something else to add to my comment. Black Panther (another MCU film) is currently going through a GA review, and the reviewer suggested reducing the article, and that film's box office info is extensive, since it also broke many records. We are potentially heading too creating a list, but in doing so, the prose at the film article will be greatly reduced, supporting the extensive list. I wanted to point that out incase that happens and someone notices and feel I'm being hypocritical in supporting that and not this one. I'm not trying to be, as my gripe with this separate list is I don't feel the need for the prose at the film article to be reduced at this time to justify the list. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 18:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- My comments above are exactly in line with the benefit you're witnessing at Black Panther's GA review. There are a few benefits in play, with reducing clutter in the main article chiefly among them. The clutter in the article surrounding these records may not be as apparent or as severe to editors that frequently work on film articles, but when 80% or 90% of a section is line after line of one record after another, it's hard to ignore how exhaustive that read must be for someone just skimming the article for information. Also on your point about film ratings, that's not the only information missing as I noted above, and there's little doubt that some items should probably be removed from the list. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 19:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- There are currently a a bunch of Marvel-only records listed in the main article that I think should be moved to this list, but the other main contributor keeps removing them. I don't see why such records are ok to be covered there but not in a stand-alone list.
Nergaal (
talk) 10:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- What are you referring to? - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 19:06, 28 June 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.
- 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 no consensus to delete. There is a clear absence of consensus for deletion, and there is actually more support for keeping this article. bd2412 T 00:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
List of box office records set by Avengers: Infinity War
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- List of box office records set by Avengers: Infinity War ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This list is just "listify-ing" the same prose info that exists at Avengers: Infinity War#Box office. Per a few discussions ( here and here), there is no need to separate out the records at this time, in this format (as the info is not unruly as prose currently) and does not give any additional info that does not exist in the prose. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 17:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Violation of WP:PROMO, basically a self-aggrandizing article that doesn't accomplish anything that can't be stated in the main article. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 00:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Pretty much hosting BOXOFFICECRUFT/IMDb trivia. This really isn't needed here at all. Nate • ( chatter) 03:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep There
have
been
other Wikipedia articles for separating and elaborating on more records than is exhaustively possible on the main movie article. I will not solely rely on those articles as
other stuff exists, but to demonstrate that this is not a new phenomenon. Particularly after Avengers: Infinity War kept breaking records,
the
news
media
certainly
took
notice
and
continued
writing
articles
on
the
subject. Not every movie that is released has this type of coverage in numerous
reliable sources relating to the records that it has broken for its Box Office Debut. I argue that due to this consistent media coverage and the
general notability independent of the movie warrants this separate article. It is not in violation of
WP:PROMO as it was not intended for promotion, but to provide an encyclopedic explanation of the various box office records that Infinity War has broken. Nearly all of the records have solid sourcing behind them, are not published with Marvel's PR team, and instead written by volunteer editors seeking to
contribute to the encyclopedia. That is pretty much the opposite of
WP:PROMO. This type of article cannot be simply merged with the parent movie article as it has broken more records than is feasible to include in the parent article, and if forced to merge, would
tip the balance for content already on the movie article. I recommend that this article be kept for those reasons.
Tutelary (
talk) 04:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Making an article touting the success of a recent movie falls into PR material regardless of whether general outlets cover it independently. If Infinity War remains a seminal movie in another decade or two I might see the case for an article like this. However, there's nothing special about a movie this expensive breaking box office records, after all the population of the Earth continues to increase while movie makers continue to consolidate ever more money into big superhero movies. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 05:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Then we have a totally different view of what PR material is. When I think of PR material, I think of
conflicts of interest,
genuine promotion from a PR team, and
attempting to influence Wikipedia editors through legal action. Putting 100% true, backed up box office records on a single page is not PR material. That's just an encyclopedia being an encyclopedia.
Tutelary (
talk) 06:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that detailing the success of a film is in no way promotional. That just doesn't make sense. Do you want us to pretend that there was no positive response to any film in any way so as to avoid sounding like we are promoting any film? - adamstom97 ( talk) 06:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Then we have a totally different view of what PR material is. When I think of PR material, I think of
conflicts of interest,
genuine promotion from a PR team, and
attempting to influence Wikipedia editors through legal action. Putting 100% true, backed up box office records on a single page is not PR material. That's just an encyclopedia being an encyclopedia.
Tutelary (
talk) 06:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Weak keepI am not going to argue strongly for this, but I do see some value in it. I personally see this sort of article as a separate thing from the actual film box office section. So regardless of what that section covers in terms of box office records, do I think that someone will get somethign out of reading this article as is? Well, if it is well maintained and focuses on actually significant records, then I think it could be very useful for someone interested specifically in the box office of films who is looking for a professional compilation of them for this film. The big concern I have is the list falling into trivia, so I would want to be sure that whoever is maintaining the page has a clear idea of what sort of records are actually worth the time of our readers. - adamstom97 ( talk) 04:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Changing my vote to Keep. The more I've thought of it, and especially after reading GoneIn60's coment below, the more potential I see in this article. I think there may be some who are underestimating it a bit simply because it isn't a very common thing. One thing to think about: are you sure every record listed here is really already at the film article? And if so, do you believe it is going to stay that way? Box office sections often get a bit unruly when the film is in theatres, but over time they are one of those things that people are going to want to get right down for better readability (especially for a GA, which will apply here). - adamstom97 ( talk) 08:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, WP:NOTSTATS, and the fact the info already exists in the appropriate spot: the film's article. — Joeyconnick ( talk) 04:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep – While I didn't cross-check all the items in the list, the second one I checked, "Biggest April opening weekend" under US & Canada, wasn't mentioned in that context anywhere in the article. The argument that it could be mentioned is irrelevant. Once the number of records grows to a certain point, as is often the case with many blockbuster films, a list can be quite helpful in separating out the film's accomplishments. Trying to incorporate dozens of records in prose becomes tedious, not to mention the negative impact it begins to have on the article's readability. In fact, having a list that you can put in a hatnote at the top of the "Box office" section might alleviate the need to bloat the article, and instead allow editors the option to offload some of the minor accomplishments to the list. Tons of potential on a keep here. The WP:PROMO claim is a stretch at best, and the WP:NOTSTATS claim isn't even in the same ballpark considering the data has context and references. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 07:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - This list is well sourced and too large to be contained in the main article. Argento Surfer ( talk) 13:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per
WP:LISTCRUFT.
BOVINEBOY
2008 13:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- @
Bovineboy2008: - This list meets the criteria given at LISTCRUFT for when a standalone list is generally appropriate. Which one(s) of the 12 meanings listed apply to this list?
Argento Surfer (
talk) 15:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- #1: The list was created just for the sake of having such a list - There was no building of this list in the article, and most of this is a regurgitation of what is on BoxOfficeMojo.
- #2: The list is of interest to a very limited number of people - Only pertains to people direly attached to the box office records of one individual film.
- #11: The list's membership is volatile and requires a disproportionate amount of effort to keep up to date. - These records will either be broken by another film at some point (probably by its own sequel), or will be added to by more and more specific criteria: "Highest-grossing superhero film outside the US and Canada market" could become "Highest-grossing superhero film featuring characters from previous stand-alone films outside the US and Canada market" BOVINEBOY 2008 15:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- @
Bovineboy2008: - This list meets the criteria given at LISTCRUFT for when a standalone list is generally appropriate. Which one(s) of the 12 meanings listed apply to this list?
Argento Surfer (
talk) 15:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep All referenced and valid accomplishments that wouldn't all fit in the main article, so as in other cases of this Tutelary mentioned, it needs its own separate article. Dream Focus 17:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I would like to point out a few of the records in the list not at the film article pertain to those the film's rating. Specifically to those, per
WP:FILMRATING, we don't allow mention of a film's rating on a normal article, so I don't see why we should be mentioning records for them here, especially since there is nothing noteworthy about it being PG-13 (unlike say Deadpool, where it being R-rated and earning what it did was notable). So you take those away, and again, you left with essentially the exact same content at the film article, just in prose, which is just another reason why I don't feel this article should exist. I would also like to clarify that I am not against separate box office records lists in general (as I know some other do exist), but in this particular instance, I do not see the necessity for the split at this time. -
Favre1fan93 (
talk) 18:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- I also thought of something else to add to my comment. Black Panther (another MCU film) is currently going through a GA review, and the reviewer suggested reducing the article, and that film's box office info is extensive, since it also broke many records. We are potentially heading too creating a list, but in doing so, the prose at the film article will be greatly reduced, supporting the extensive list. I wanted to point that out incase that happens and someone notices and feel I'm being hypocritical in supporting that and not this one. I'm not trying to be, as my gripe with this separate list is I don't feel the need for the prose at the film article to be reduced at this time to justify the list. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 18:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- My comments above are exactly in line with the benefit you're witnessing at Black Panther's GA review. There are a few benefits in play, with reducing clutter in the main article chiefly among them. The clutter in the article surrounding these records may not be as apparent or as severe to editors that frequently work on film articles, but when 80% or 90% of a section is line after line of one record after another, it's hard to ignore how exhaustive that read must be for someone just skimming the article for information. Also on your point about film ratings, that's not the only information missing as I noted above, and there's little doubt that some items should probably be removed from the list. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 19:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- There are currently a a bunch of Marvel-only records listed in the main article that I think should be moved to this list, but the other main contributor keeps removing them. I don't see why such records are ok to be covered there but not in a stand-alone list.
Nergaal (
talk) 10:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- What are you referring to? - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 19:06, 28 June 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.