Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billboard 200


 * 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 speedy keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) –– FormalDude  talk  03:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Billboard 200

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Is there really enough significant coverage by secondary sources independent of Billboard magazine on this specific chart? Sure, it is regularly cited by several reputable sources but tons of passing mentions don't make a subject notable. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 20:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Clarification by nominator: I am aware that this chart is incredibly significant and I agree that it is arguably the biggest album chart in the world. But does it need its own stand-alone article? Couldn't it be sufficiently covered at Billboard charts or at Billboard (magazine) in two or three paragraphs? I just don't see the significant coverage required to flesh out an entirely separate article. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 13:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 20:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep Did you do any WP:BEFORE at all on this? Any music fan or anyone who is in the broadcast industry knows what the Billboard 200 is, and it's reported on every single week by wire services.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have done BEFORE of course. Your argument sounds like WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. I repeat, tons of passing mentions don't constitute notability. In what way exactly are wire services reporting on it? Does their reporting constitute significant coverage? Significant coverage to me would delve into what the chart is, its history, significance, cultural impact, etc. I don't see a lot of secondary sources doing that. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 23:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment It's week to week coverage of the songs that are actually a part of the chart. It would be absolutely time-wasting for the writers of Rolling Stone, iHeart, Audacy, and every radio journal since Your Hit Parade was still a thing to have paragraphs about the history of the chart. This nomination would be like asking to delete the articles for Nielsen ratings and List of highest-grossing films because they didn't explain the history of those entities in every article about them.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That does not change the fact that significant coverage is needed for there to be a stand-alone article on the subject. This article is not a stand-alone list and even if it was, it would be subject to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I am not asking to delete those articles you list because they have already established their notability through the sources they use. In order to fill this article with information, independent significant coverage by reliable secondary sources is required to provide that information. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 01:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per 's comments. Indisputably notable. ben ǝʇᴉɯ  23:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Article has existed since 2004. Notable topic. Reasonable sourcing. (I'm not saying it can't be improved but that is true of all articles and it is definitely good enough for a speedy keep.) I tried to count the number of incoming links and I got bored with trying to go through the list page by page, even 500 at a time. 62K people have looked at it in the last month. This is absolutely not what a deletable article looks like. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Length of existence and page views don't constitute notability. Again, sounds like THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Looking at the amount of sources is not enough. It has to be evaluated whether the coverage they provide is significant. The article is poorly sourced, it relies almost entirely on primary sources and large portions go completely unsourced (not that this has any bearing on whether the article should be deleted or not). Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 23:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep and possible bad faith nomination. Article needs to be improved, not deleted. Sure it is dependent on references to Billboard itself, and a basic (make that VERY basic} Internet search for information about the chart has even more Billboard piled up near the top. But a more knowledgeable search of terms like <"Billboard 200 analysis"> or <"Billboard 200 history"> in Google or Google Books reveals what everyone here except the nominator already knows: this is the premier albums chart in America for the past several decades and only someone unfamiliar with music would think it is non-notable just by looking at the current state of the article. Here are just a few among hundreds of possibilities:, , , plus dozens of books on chart history that get reviews by pros in both music and literature. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 01:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither Google nor Google books spur out much independent significant coverage when typing in the search terms you suggest. This is very specifically about the Billboard 200 chart, not about Billboard charts in general (which we already have an article for). The top-three out of "hundreds" of sources you provide also don't go into detail about this specific chart, but rather about Billboard charts in general. The Forbes source is written by a contributor, articles of which are agreed to be generally unreliable.
 * I'm very aware of the significance of this chart. I'm not suggesting that the term "Billboard 200" should be wiped entirely from Wikipedia. I'm arguing that the chart is sufficiently covered as a supplement on other articles like the one I linked to above, and is simply not deserving of a stand-alone article per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 01:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I try not to feed bludgeoners but I sincerely wonder if you navigate beyond the top half of page 1 when you conduct Google searches. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 15:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This discussion is turning out to be highly contentious. There are assumptions made against me that I feel like I'm allowed to defend myself against. Funnily enough, "Billboard 200 analysis" at either Google or Google Books does not show more than one page of results, which leads me to believe that you haven't even done the research you're claiming to have done. Trust me when I say that I have done my BEFORE on this as I was genuinely interested in improving the article. It is only my duty as a conscientious editor to nominate an article for deletion when it turns out that no material exists to build a fully fleshed out article on. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 15:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * For me, <"Billboard 200 history"> gets 11 pages of results in standard Google and 9 pages of results in Google Books. <"Billboard 200 analysis"> brings up 2 and 1 pages respectively. In either case, navigating beyond the first few entries at the top reveals the independent sources that you keep insisting don't exist. And those search terms were only two suggestions. I recommended the use of creative searches when a standard search is swamped by the obvious, and you could come up with more creative ideas. Or keep on digging that hole, it's your choice. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 20:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Something POINT-Y about this nomination. Clearly a notable and established chart, with citations and sources, and with links to countless discography articles of notable albums, artists etc. Very little basis for a genuine deletion nomination. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep It seems the user who has nominated the article for deletion, has personal issues with the article! First he added several tags on article and then nominated for deletion! Although it's completely notable. Brayan ocaner (talk) 07:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding maintenance tags and nominating for deletion are two very consistent actions I would say. You're not supposed to assume bad faith. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 08:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep I thought this was a joke. This chart is most probably the most notable album chart in existence. I can't imagine what the nominator motivation is, other than to prove a point, whatever that point is. The snowball clause clearly holds, so I propose this be closed and further time wastage avoided. (The one good thing that came out of this is that I got to search Google Scholar for articles about this chart. Happy reading.) --Muhandes (talk) 07:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Instead of "wasting time", why not provide actual hard evidence for stand-alone notability? I've nominated because I genuinely couldn't find any good sources to work off of to improve the article. You're providing one source that's behind a registration wall, which, again, I'm not even sure covers this specific chart from reading its title and abstract. If adequate sources are so plentiful and easy to find according to everyone here, why not link to them and cut this short?
 * I'm baffled by the way this is being handled and by the way I'm being characterized. I believe genuine concerns by fellow Wikipedians should be respected and not dismissed outright like it's being done by many here. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 08:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep I regret that you are baffled. But if you are a New Page Patroller, Billboard is mighty important for page review. Very very important. I regret your confusion. *Absolutely* *Notable*. This chart is most probably the most notable album chart in existence. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I am going to break the rules here and show you why we consider Billboard *Absolutely* *Notable*
 * (to everyone else, 'scuzi) --Whiteguru (talk) 11:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Album Sources
 * I am not nominating "Billboard" for deletion. I am nominating the specific article for the "Billboard 200" chart for deletion. I am aware that Billboard magazine and even its charts in general are very much notable. Notability however is not inherited by association. Saying that something is "very, very important" and "absolutely notable" does not make it such. There has to be significant coverage on the Billboard 200 chart in specific, which I and apparently all the editors commenting here, have a hard time finding. I don't see how listing a bunch of Billboard-related templates proves your point that the Billboard 200 chart should have its own stand-alone article. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 11:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep – like others have said, I literally thought this was a joke at first. Regardless of whether the page in its current state "only uses primary sources", this is no joke one of the biggest music charts in the world. Music charts of other countries of this nature are smaller than this article currently so based on your logic what makes them notable? Especially considering how more relevant the Billboard 200 is compared to say the Norwegian Albums Chart. This whole thing and your logic are just confusing. – zmbro (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Which policy requires me to nominate every lesser article for deletion first? I know that the current state of the article is irrelevant and it is not part of my argument. I've literally stated that above. If you had read my comments, you would know what my argument is. I have to keep repeating myself. Relevancy is not equal to notability. Is this article exempt from WP:GNG? Again, WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES without providing any that constitute significant coverage.
 * Again, I know that this chart is incredibly significant and I agree that it is arguably the biggest album chart in the world. But does it need its own stand-alone article? Couldn't it be sufficiently covered at Billboard charts or at Billboard (magazine) in two or three paragraphs? Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 13:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm one of the main contributors to the article, having updated its current #1 every week since the issue dated August 7. I also updated some of the chart's achievements/milestones, such as with Drake and Certified Lover Boy a few weeks ago. In total, I have edited the article 21 times, the most recent being yesterday with the inclusion of this week's number 1 album "Sincerely, Kentrell", and am in the top 12 by number of edits. Having said that, I have to agree with the other participants in this AfD nomination is dumb. Marioedit8 (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep the GNG is not a policy, it is a guideline. This chart is clearly notable as can be shown from wire services reporting on it every week. I haven't seen an argument advanced for how deleting this article would actually improve the encyclopedia. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 22:41, 5 October 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.