Deletion of Highest-grossing films in overseas markets

Comment: and '''rename'''.  It is pretty standard in US and Canadian sources to cover box office grosses in terms of US/Canada gross, gross from everywhere except the US and Canada, and worldwide gross.  For example, www.boxofficemojo.com and www.the-numbers.com, two box office tracking websites, run weekly columns discussing box office gross from non-US/Canada markets (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3588&p=.htm and http://www.the-numbers.com/interactive/newsStory.php?newsID=7853 appear to be the most recent of those articles at the time I write this).  The box office numbers in the article aren't merely created by subtracting the US/Canada gross from the worldwide gross, but are a subject of discussion on there own.  Even though the subject is only discussed in US/Canadian sources (as far as I know), I believe it is a notable topic that passes .   is not a valid reason to delete the article, as that essay is in no way saying that subjects should be deleted due to recieving coverage in only one or two countries.  A topic covered by reliable sources is appropirate for inclusion in Wikipedia even if those sources are only from a couple countries.  However,  is a good reason not to merge this list with List of highest-grossing films, as this list is about a topic of interest primarily to the US and Canada and primarily covered in US/Canadian sources, and merging it into an article with worldwide scope would not make sense to me.  I would oppose merging the list, and instead think it should be kept as its own article.  Also, about the name of the article, it is clearly mischosen.  The topic as covered in US/Canadian sources is the gross box office of films originating in any country, but only from movie theaters in countries other than the United States and Canada.  The article should be renamed to make that more clear, and an explanation of the exact scope should be added to the lead of the article.  A lot of the "delete" !votes seem to be focusing on the confusion arising from the topic's name, but a poor name is an easily fixed problem and not a valid reason for deleting an article (admittedly, the intended scope of the article was probably not clear to anyone who doesn't regularly read US/Canadian box office sources, but hopefully it is clear from the sources I linked to . . . again, this is a pretty standard way of presenting box office number in US/Canadian sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:WORLDVIEW||WP:WORLDVIEW)