Talk:List of one-hit wonders in the United States

True by Spandau Ballet
I think that we should add True by Spandau Ballet to the list since we have Take On Me by a-ha where both artists have had two Billboard Top 40 hits but only one was siginificant. 112.205.215.42 (talk) 04:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The current inclusion criteria call for two independent reliable sources directly stating the act is a one-hit wonder. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 05:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Not only do we need two sources for each entry, but the sources should be portraying the US point of view. Britannica doesn't do that. Binksternet (talk) 05:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * But there is one source that does, and is far more accurate. Billboard. 50.111.24.195 (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * That does not meet this article's current inclusion criteria. The discussion of your displeasure with the current criteria is at Talk:List_of_one-hit_wonders_in_the_United_States. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If the criteria of ONE Billboard Top 40 is the guideline, Spandau Ballet would not qualify, as "Gold" did make the Billboard Top 40. To be true to the criteria, it would have to be that A-ha should be removed from the list. 32.212.41.123 (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We are not using that criteria. Rather, we are citing the media who have made their assessments of "one-hit wonder" status based on whatever they think is important. Binksternet (talk) 01:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I just added them yesterday, a Britannica source with a US point of view and a popular US radio show are the two sources I used as proof that they really are a one-hit-wonder in the US. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 07:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Should we only list songs/bands who broke the top 40 of the Billboard hot 100 list?
While I agree that we shouldn’t use “number of songs that made top 40 on the Billboard Hot 100” as a hard and fast determiner of what constitutes a one hit wonder (Jimi Hendrix is not a one-hit-wonder, but Dead or Alive is a one hit wonder band), one issue I am seeing in the list is the number of British or regional one hit wonders which never broke the top 40 in the US: Toto Coelo, that Shiny Shiny song, to name just two 1980s examples which were only top 40 in the UK; here in the US they were either MTV hits or were mainly played on alternative music stations. That in mind, would it be reasonable to remove songs from this list which never made the US Billboard top 40? It can sometimes be hard to tell, without grabbing a lot of context, if a given reference is talking about the US or UK when they discuss a song being a 1-hit-wonder, so a number of UK-only hits are on the list. Samboy (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The inclusion criteria, based on two reliable sources per entry, should suffice. The sources must describe the song or the band in the context of American viewpoints. Binksternet (talk) 04:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but we do need to remove entries for an unrelated reason: A lot of entries are relying on a forum posting, which is, as per Wikipedia policy, not a reliable source. I agree to not remove entries just because they were never US top 40 hits and agree that would be original research, but we also must make sure we are using reliable sources when claiming a song is a “one hit wonder”.  A forum post does not cut it.  Samboy (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Back to the Hot 100 we should go. 99.118.250.37 (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Criteria
We need to have better criteria then just having 2 sources as many of the singers and bands mentioned are not truly one hit wonders as they have multiple hits Lunacats (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Use the actual charts. 99.118.250.37 (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Rodney Crowell
, the criteria says " even though they may actually have had multiple hits", I'm not sure we have to be slavish to the sources here, as there is some flexibility. Any source that would call Rodney Crowell a "one hit wonder", well, is kind of an idiot. He's had more than a few hits. I understand that some entries may have had some other minor hits or just called that, but he kind of stands out as someone who has had tremendous success, and even if a source things he was a "one hit wonder", he really isn't. Unlike most of the entries, he is rather critically acclaimed for writing, singing, and has charted over a dozen singles and over a dozen albums in a career that spans over 40 years. Two Grammys plus other awards. I mean, that is kind of the antithesis of a one hit wonder. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The inclusion criteria here at this particular article was strongly established in 2017 at the discussion Talk:List_of_2010s_one-hit_wonders_in_the_United_States. Prior to that discussion, lots of reversions were being made to add/remove entries based on all sorts of factors. We settled into a non-chart-related inclusion criteria to squelch the chart arguments.
 * The next year, the inclusion criteria was challenged with Talk:List_of_one-hit_wonders_in_the_United_States as you can see above. The consensus was once again strongly against using chart stats.
 * I get what you're saying, but I would rather deal with published references than with Wikipedia editors taking it upon themselves to count chart results and determine who is and who is not a one-hit wonder. Binksternet (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I would agree with you if DJs and pop rock journo's were known for their standards of scholarship. As it is, the only-once-this-high-in-Billboard-and-less-then-that-ever-after criterion is one that editors can surely apply just as diligently.2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:E08D:C862:D617:C42B (talk) 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:E08D:C862:D617:C42B (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I would rather use conclusive chart results (include Radio & Records or Cashbox chart results if you need more than one source). 99.118.250.37 (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

"Multiple appearances"
I find it a bit strange to have a category of people appearing multiple times on a list of one-hit-wonders. See for instance the sentence "British musician Tony Burrows sang the lead vocal on five one-hit wonders". To me, it's not immediately apparent how you're a one-time-wonder when you've had five top hits. --2A02:8071:B6A8:1B00:FC0E:E627:B689:15C9 (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Because "one hit wonder" is an egregious misnomer. It sounds like a (nasty and uncalled-for) slight of the artist who "only managed one" when in fact we are talking about songs - songs that took on a life of their own and whose fame outshines the artist (in the sense that among 100 people picked at random, 90 or more can hum along but fewer than 30 know who sang it). What is particularly galling is that this is pretty much the default situation for classical music!
 * Marvellous Tony Burrows lend his hit power to five such songs, with five nominally distinct "acts." He just never got the recognition that perhaps ought to go along, but such is life.
 * 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:E08D:C862:D617:C42B (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The acts that Burrows was part of were groups with one-hit wonders. Nobody takes the lead singer under any consideration. 99.118.250.37 (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Europe - The Final Countdown
Should Europe's 1986 hit, The Final Countdown be considered a "One hit wonder"? 92.9.101.53 (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * No. According to Billboard, Europe had four Top 40 hits ("The Final Countdown" at #8 Billboard/#7 Radio & Records, "Rock the Night" at #30 BB/#28 R&R, "Carrie" at #3 BB/#1 R&R, and "Superstitious" at #31 BB/#30 R&R). 99.118.250.37 (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if anyone is saying they are a one hit wonder remember they did have a hit with song called "Carrie" which out preformed "The Final Countdown" however this list is not about chart positions it's about sources claiming it's a one hit wonder. DanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * There is a curious diachronic aspect to these matters. At the time, Carrie was "bigger." Since then, Countdown has become almost like a short-hand for 80s Euro-big-hair-metal pop. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:E08D:C862:D617:C42B (talk) 14:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

songs that are missing from the list
Bloodrock - D.O.A. (song) (peaked at 36 on March 6, 1971)

Randy Newman - Short People (peaked at 2 on January 28, 1978)

Pink Lady (duo) - Kiss in the Dark (Pink Lady song) (peaked at 37 on August 4, 1979) 2601:8D:600:4CF0:48D2:44E8:5CA1:DD59 (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The inclusion criteria for this particular list article is that the media must name the song and artist as one-hit wonders, with the media representing an American viewpoint. We don't put songs in or take songs out based on chart performance. Binksternet (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * One flaw with your criteria: *domestic* media are notorious for overlooking/underplaying/ignoring *foreign* influences (NB I'm not singling out America as this is true everywhere). Case in point: I suggest that "Hocus Pocus" (#9 on the Billboard Hot 100 in 1973) is currently absen from this US list only because Focus is a *Dutch* band and had the misfortune to fall into the American media's 'blind spot' when listing one-hit wonders. (I say "misfortune" because I see "Venus" by the Dutch band Shocking Blue is on this list - so should "Hocus Pocus"!) Birdman euston (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, Lee Michaels - "Do You Know What I Mean" (1971) fulfils Chris Molanphy's criteria (as featured in the main article!) for a OHW because Michaels' only other top-40 hit, "Can I Get A Witness?", peaked at #39 on the Billboard Hot 100 ca. two months after "DYKWIM" peaked at #6 - and none of his nine albums went platinum. Birdman euston (talk) 11:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Our job is to represent the published media, not to fill the gaps left by the media. Binksternet (talk) 13:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Our" job? Oh, I get it. Wikipedia is supposed to represent accuracy - but instead you merely pledge blind allegiance the "published media" (which, as I've just explained, is *not* always completely accurate and unbiased, especially about foreign sources). Kindly be less dogmatic/anal, take your blinkers off, use your brains (e.g., fill in for yourself the media's apparent blind spot over Hocus Pocus re U.S. One-Hit Wonders) and just be accurate! Birdman euston (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue is that Hocus Pocus fulfils the once-this-high-in-Billboard criterion. If in addition, two or more US DJ's or Rock journo's have to have commented on the objective fact of the matter, than that is where we leave the realm of the encyclopaedic. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:E08D:C862:D617:C42B (talk) 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:E08D:C862:D617:C42B (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's why we should use the Billboard charts (although you could use the Radio & Records charts as well if you want two sources). 99.118.250.37 (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Considering that this article is about one-hit wonders in the United States, I would hope that the sources we are citing represent an American viewpoint. To look at things from the opposite direction, no sensible American music writer would classify John Denver as a one-hit wonder -- four of his songs went to #1 on the Billboard Hot 100 (and he had eleven other top 40 hits). Yet in the UK, John Denver nearly qualified as a one-hit wonder even under their stricter definition -- he had one #1 hit in the UK and a duet that peaked at #46, and that's all. An American writer might say, "John Denver is obviously not a one-hit wonder," while a British writer might say, "John Denver is technically not a one-hit wonder," and both would be correct in regard to their own countries' singles charts. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Issue with this list
I see some people arguing that there are some people on this list who have had more than one top 40 hit and I agree. The term "one hit" speaks for itself and to include people who have had multiple success and somehow are still included on this list is completely disingenuous to music. 2603:7000:8E03:FB00:545C:4A29:8E6D:256E (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * agreed. in all honesty such a subjective page shouldnt exist on wikipedia in the first place.  artists here even have greatest hits albums filled with high charting singles.  this page undermines the 1 hit wonder term. Bragieno (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * this feels too arbitrary and subjective to be on wikipedia
 * i think this page should attempt to list one hit wonders that are basically accepted by nearly every source, rather than a measly 2 sources. people visit wikipedi for facts, this page feels like something that belongs on reddit.  the reason is because the criteria is way too low of a bar.  therefore this page doesn`t read as factual like you'd expect on wikipedia.  i'd suggest removing controversial entries or using purelz objective criteria.  or offering the ability to remove an artist if 1 reliable source is found stating they are not 1 hit wonders.  if none of that works then at least raise the bar to something like 5 or 10 reliable sources.  this list is harmful for posterity`s sake since many arguable artists are peppered in with the undeniable 1 hit wonders.  thanks for your time. Bragieno (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Help with the Visual Editor
I am encountering an issue with the Visual Editor that I used to always have. Recently, I was able to successfully add a number of entries to the 1960's and 1970's sections of the list because of this issue being absent. I was also able to order the entries correctly. The issue is when I click on the [edit] text next to where the decade is listed, the entire list is highlighted in a large blue square. You click on it, and it says, "Template Content" and a bunch of other jargon after "Generated from". When I wasn't getting this, I was able to just click on the [edit] text and simply add a bullet point at a certain part in the list. How do I fix this? Thank You ~ Alexander Ya Boy Alex! (talk) 04:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The list was great once but now ridiculous
not a fan of bands like simple red or Europe but we should use the criteria of BILLBOARD. simple minds had at least 3-4 Top 40 Hits. A one hit wonder is defined as artist who had just one Top 40 Hit in the US.

Worthless under-charts like Dance Charts etc. irrelevant !! 2A02:8071:67C1:5320:69BD:3358:F697:F6CD (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)


 * We have a clear consensus against Billboard chart stats as defining this topic. Instead, the media define the topic. See Talk:List_of_2010s_one-hit_wonders_in_the_United_States which was unanimous. Binksternet (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

JESUS JONES problem
JESUS JONES had 2 Top 40 hits on the billboard Charts

RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW #2 REAL REAL REAL #4

fact is that this band is not a one hit wonder

but there is one problem.

REAL REAL REAL became #4 on the hot 100 because of changes in Hot 100 criteria in 1991. no one in The USA knows this song 2A02:8071:67C1:5320:69BD:3358:F697:F6CD (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)


 * We have a clear consensus against Billboard chart stats as defining this topic. Instead, the media define the topic. See Talk:List_of_2010s_one-hit_wonders_in_the_United_States which was unanimous. Binksternet (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Warning about possible false citations
So, I was recently looking through the list, and I noticed something. It seems that some people are citing (or at least are going to attempt to cite) the page "All One-Hit Wonders 1955-2016" from top40weekly.com

The cite lists all artists from 1955 to a certain point in 2016 (then it just cuts off for whatever reason) who have only had one song appear in the Top 40 of The Billboard Hot 100. The issue is that some people are citing this cite for artists that in reality, have had more than one song reach the Top 40 of The Billbaord Hot 100. They seem to think that because the list is long, no one is going to be bothered to click on the direct link, and actually look through the list for themselves and see if the artist in question is even on the list at all.

A similar thing goes for Wayne Jancik. I just removed an entry from the list (That being the group Club Nouveau with the song "Lean on Me" to be exact) because Wayne Jancik was falsely cited. He explicitly defines a One-Hit Wonder as "An act that has won a position on Billboard's national, pop, Top 40 just once." Club Nouveau however, had two Top 40 songs. I also just replaced a citation for Mungo Jerry's "In The Summertime". The citation was "Jancik (1998), p. 500."

One issue however, I don't think whoever used this citation (or most people on this Wiki page for that matter) have even READ Wayne Jancik's book at ALL. My Wayne Jancik book is from 2008. The bulk of the book tells the stories of artists who have had only one Top 40 song, who's songs have in turn peaked at positions #1 - #20. At the back of the book from Pages #498 - #509, are some pages not talking about in detail, but rather simply listing all of the artists (from 1955 - 1992) who have had only one Top 40 song, who's songs have in turn peaked at positions #21 - #40. The section is called "The Bottom 20". (Likely because of limitations) Mungo Jerry's song "In The Summertime" was cited to be Page #500 of Wayne Jancik's 1998 book, "The Billboard Book of One-Hit Wonders". (Which in all fairness, I do not own)

https://www.amazon.com/Billboard-One-Hit-Wonders-Wayne-Jancik/dp/0823076229

Here on Amazon, one of the reviewers is explaining the "Bottom 20" section of the book. So the book must also be structured like Wayne Jancik's 2008 book, "One-Hit Wonders". (The book that I happen to own) The song "In The Summertime" by Mungo Jerry peaked at #3, so the entry for Mungo Jerry in the book should not be anywhere NEAR Page #500. It should be at the begin of the 1970's chapter. (For me, the song is listed on Page #287)

Guys, what I am trying to say is this: When a new entry is put on the list, you MUST check the sources used. End of story. There might be an invalid source used, and you would never even notice it. So I am just trying to bring awareness to this issue on here.

Thank You for your time ~ Alex Ya Boy Alex! (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

sfn/sfnp error
Shoot, well now some citations like the first one for Polly Brown are messed up. They have an error, and I have literally absolutely NO idea how it got there. It's to the SPIN website. Ya Boy Alex! (talk) 06:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Help with sfnps
Hey, if anyone knows how to convert the Wayne Jancik 2008 book citations to sfnps, then please let me know! Cause I just tried to convert one, and an error came up. So of course, I didn't even try to go through with it. Ya Boy Alex! (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

add a new topic
we should add collboration one hit wonders because there are many people who are one hit wonders for a song that they were featured in examples, Kiki Dee, Florence Welch, Rozes, chvrches, freshlyground, sabi, leighton meester ( I dont know how to do this)24.184.10.164 (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, based on the page's vague criteria, none of these artists would be disqualified. Featured artists are just fine. Ya Boy Alex! (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

One hit wonders of the 2020s
Should there be a section about one hit wonders in the 2020s? There's plenty of those too. RockStarrMusicLover95 (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * We can most definitely try to include a 2020s section. There have been several, mostly short-lived attempts to start a 2020s section in the past, but none have ever caught on or stuck. So as long as the entry has two reliable, US-based sources, then sure! Let's go add some entries! Ya Boy Alex! (talk) 05:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * At the moment i'm not seeing enough sources i think it's because the acts are still active and have a chance to release something, i will keep the section on my sandbox for now :). DanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Thin Lizzy
Hlom10 keeps removing Thin Lizzy, including the reference that clearly states they were a one hit wonder (in those exact words). Others, feel free to opine on this, one way or another. Dennis Brown 2&cent; 10:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable Sources
A lot of the entries on this page have sources of questionable quality, like tiny websites with clickbait listicles or Sporcle quizzes. Given Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources, specifically about questionable or self-published sources, there seem to be a lot of entries that should either be removed or given proper sources. Janus Antoninus (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The task will be easier if you point out specific sources to remove. Binksternet (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding your removal of Carly Rae Jepsen, it would be interesting for the reader if we write a paragraph about her career arc saying that she was considered a one-hit wonder for the three years between 2012 and 2015, despite the success of "Good Time", her second US hit single in 2012. Binksternet (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Sure, some obvious examples of questionable sources besides the dozens of Sporcle references are the citations of hollywoodgossip.com, mentalitch.com, musicgrotto, popexpresso.com, playback.fm, reads-it.com, rtt80s.com, and 360degreesound.com. All of those are tiny websites that don't even have a Wikipedia page about them or about any parent publisher and that give no indication of criteria, methods, expertise, or anything else that would give independent confidence in their lists.


 * I'll also mention that there are plenty of other listicles cited from publications that other editors might consider dubious as a basis for saying a song is a one-hit wonder but that are at least well-established in pop culture or comedy (e.g. Buzzfeed, Cracked, Bustle, Pop Matters, Pop Crush) or are at least actual news sources (e.g. articles from random local radio stations or newspapers). I would put in a vote removing any Buzzfeed sources but that might just be prejudice. Otherwise I haven't seen any sign that those are questionable sources for this topic.

PAGE ]]) 19:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's a good idea to add a line somewhere about Carly Rae Jepsen, given how widely discussed her not being a one-hit wonder is. The other two that I had removed recently on account of having multiple hits in the Top 10 of the US Billboard Hot 100 - Psy and LMFAO - are probably also notable for being occasionally or temporarily called one-hit wonders but also being occasionally described as escaping one-hit wonder status (LMFAO is a particular weird case because they had two #1 hits in the US but they were close to the same time and their third Top 40 hit was a collab and not as massively famous). Psy though has some solid sources calling him a one-hit wonder so I don't see any policy reason to exclude him. Janus Antoninus (talk) 05:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Janus Antoninus I went through and marked those (and a bunch of others) with Unreliable source?. There's still a lot more crap in there. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK

Hozier broke his One-Hit Wonder status today! YAAAAAAYYYY!!! :D :D :D
https://www.billboard.com/artist/hozier/ Ya Boy Alex! (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I thought He was already removed from this list because of "Northern Attitude" but congrats to him for getting two top 10 hits in the US.DanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Nazareth, A Flock of Seagulls and Randy Newman
I noticed their are several artist who had more than one hit. Nazareth besides their song Love Hurts had another hit with Hair of the Dog. A Flock Of Seagulls had Space Age Love song which was a hit and Wishing I had a Photograph of you and Randy Newman who had several more hits than just Short People. He had You've Got a Friend in Me, as well as several more successful songs that appeared in Pixar films. Joey (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

PAGE ]]) 19:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @MrJoeytheMusicMan Yeah, I have a hard time classifying a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductee with with seven Grammy awards (three of which were in a "Best Song" category), two Academy Awards for Best Original Song, and three Emmys for Music and Lyrics as a one-hit wonder. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * I think they should be removed from the list, their are a few other artist here and their I have noticed as not being one hit wonders. Joey (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Extensive tagging of sources
Pinging who alerted me. Earlier today, tagged a bunch of sources as unreliable. Here's a list of the base websites along with my off-the-cuff assessment:
 * playback.fm – lacks a human author, probably automated web scraper
 * mentalitch.com – lacks a human author, probably AI-generated text
 * 360degreesound.com – looks okay to me because the website has multiple editors and contributors.
 * medium.com – generally unreliable source, depending on the author and the topic. See WP:MEDIUM.
 * metv.com – lacks a named author, just "Staff". The "about" page does not name any editors or writers which is worrisome.
 * www.musicgrotto.com – looks okay to me because the website has multiple editors and contributors.
 * rtt80s.com – Wordpress blog, falls under WP:USERG. If someone can establish Paul Stroessner as a music critic or musicologist then this can be used.
 * sporcle.com – looks like a blogging platform which allows anyone to contribute. Same as medium.com. If the author doesn't use their real name then the reliability goes waaay down.
 * buzzfeed.com – possibly unreliable source, depending on the author and the topic. See WP:BUZZFEED.
 * tidal.com – lacks a human author, probably automated web scraper
 * reads-it.com – suspiciously automated appearance, with every article written by "Bobby McNeill" but no list of editors or contributors. The notional Bobby McNeill does not have a reputation as a music expert. Looks like AI-generated text.
 * cracked.com – looks okay to me because the website has multiple editors and contributors.
 * watchmojo.com – I'm baffled because I can't find a list of editors and contributors, but writer Andy Hammersmith might be a pop culture journalist from Ohio.
 * whatculture.com – Maybe okay, maybe not. Writer Alexander Greensmith appears to be a real human, but the website does not list its editors and contributors.
 * hollywoodgossip.com – The named author is fake or a pseudonym: Tattle Taylor. Might be AI-generated text.
 * whosampled.com – lacks a human author, probably automated web scraper.
 * There are some other dodgy sources that were not tagged by Ahecht:
 * junkee.com – The main problem here is that Junkee is based in Australia, so if they think a musical artist is a one-hit wonder, that has little relevance for the USA. The writer Nathan Jolly looks like a career music critic from Australia.
 * audacy.com – Questionable source, does not list its team of editors or contributors. The named author is Marni Zipper who works for Sony in Los Angeles as a digital marketer.

I think we need to establish which of these can be considered reliable, and which are not. Following that, some entries will probably fall away. Binksternet (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

PAGE ]]) 13:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 13:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank You! I will try to work this out. :) Ya Boy Alex! (talk) 03:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Binksternet, Ya Boy Alex!: I didn't think I had tagged metv.com, just gave the references real names, but perhaps I should have. Not sure why I tagged 360degreesound -- I thought the site had looked a lot scammier when I visited it yesterday, but I might've done something like accidentally mistyped the URL or clicked on an ad. I'll remove those tags. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * @Binksternet As for cracked.com and whatculture.com, they are listed at Reliable sources/Perennial sources and WP:WHATCULTURE as "generally unreliable". --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK

The One-Hit Wonders page on Top40Weekly has been updated!
Check it out! 2016 is completed, as well as adding 2017, 2018 and 2019! Also, three new entries have been added prior to 2010:

Stone Poneys - Different Drum (January 27th, 1968) (#13)

Garbage - Stupid Girl (September 21st, 1996) (#24)

Weezer - Beverly Hills (October 8th, 2005) (#10)

Yaaaaay! :D

~ Alex :) Ya Boy Alex! (talk) 06:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Bustle article
Bustle has firm editorial oversight. They are an online magazine. The article in question was written by a veteran entertainment journalist. Nothing unreliable that I can see in this case. Binksternet (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but this is your opinion, not a discussion. Have you reviewed both the article and what Wikipedia's reliable source guidance suggests? The sentences are: "It's depressing, but really pretty at the same time. I can't tell you how many times I played this song on repeat." That doesn't cut it. Caro7200 (talk) 23:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The bar is lower than you think. At Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, the Bustle online magazine is questioned for reliability but not deprecated. That means articles from Bustle are available to use unless proven unreliable on a case-by-case basis. Binksternet (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Have these two sentences made the article's case that the Wallflowers are a one-hit-wonder? The entire thing is closer to a listicle made up of a freelancer's musings. Caro7200 (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no proof needed for the label "one-hit wonder" which tends to be a social construct rather than a precise statistical fact. If two media sources apply the label we have enough foundation to list that artist. Binksternet (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would hope it's two reliable media sources, but it doesn't seem to be. WP is built on reliable sources and the factuality of the statements made by those sources. This listicle doesn't provide any actual content. Caro7200 (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Wallflowers as OHW
Other sources discuss whether the Wallflowers are a one-hit wonder.
 * Business Insider magazine from 2018, updated 2024
 * Cosmopolitan magazine from 2021
 * UK magazine NME from 2014
 * Boston-based Edge Media said in 2009 that the Wallflowers are remembered as a one-hit wonder.
 * American magazine Redbook published a story in 2021 which was re-published by Yahoo Lifestyle Canada.
 * On pages 87–88 of the book Music of the 1990s, Florida music professor Thomas Harrison talks about artists that might "emerge as a one-hit wonder". Harrison lists Beck as a possibility, but three years after his first big hit, Beck enjoyed several more "smash" hit songs to avoid the label. Harrison then talks about Blind Melon and the Wallflowers having only one big hit followed by a critical loss of momentum.
 * CMJ New Music Monthly magazine wrote in 2000 that Bob Dylan was never a one-hit wonder but for the Wallflowers "that remains a very real possibility".

Several sources such as Grunge.com and a fan review published in the Deseret News talk about the Wallflowers being considered a one-hit wonder while adding contradictory text to negate the label. But enough positive application of the label appears in sources for us to list the band. Binksternet (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Many, but not all, are better than Bustle, with some still not explicitly calling the band a one-hit-wonder (and which doesn't change the fact that they had four big radio hits). It may be time to get input from the broader music project on this: the whole issue is that one-hit-wonder and artist with one top 40 hit aren't synonymous. This article tries to have it both ways, and many others to boot, as other editors have noted. It often seems like a monument to Wayne Jancik and mediocre sourcing, curated by one editor. As you mentioned, Binksternet, "one-hit-wonder" has a certain meaning, of pop, frivolity, the rose-tinted past, etc. For one example, Frank Zappa had one big hit; the larger WP music community may not consider him a "one-hit-wonder", as a truly defining characteristic, especially as one source is a reproduction of a VH1 video listing. I'll raise the subject tomorrow at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music or whichever broader page editors here deem appropriate. Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The thread has been posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. Caro7200 (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Came from there. IMO Blinksternet has justified keeping that band in. Mach61 17:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

2020s OHWs
Is it alright if we add one-hit wonders from the 2020s as well? WazzupMyBoyz (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Spinditty can now be used
I would like to let everyone know that the Canadian website Spinditty.com has a number of articles on One-Hit Wonders, and I have been able to establish the article's writer as an American writer and critic. The articles/lists are also coming from an American perspective. Therefore, we can use the pages as a source for entries! Ya Boy Alex! (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * ive tried to add that one in the past but it was blacklisted therefore blocked to use has it been lifted? DanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've been able to establish the writer as American, however I am not able to lift the blacklist status. If you know a way around the issue, then we very much appreciate that. :) Ya Boy Alex! (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)