Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cashbox Top 100 number-one singles of 1965


 * 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. Sources are of vital importance to wikipedia. In this case there are available online sources of questionable quality and offline sources (the magazine itself) which are hard to access and not currently utilized. I don't see any consensus in this discussion regarding the best way to handle the situation. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Cashbox Top 100 number-one singles of 1965

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )



The first reference for these lists is this, a personal fansite compiled by a single user; the other reference is a site called musicseek.info, which redirects to a domain squatter. Some were also referenced to a personal website hosted by members.aol.com, also now defunct. I have looked around and have not been able to find any reliable site that archives the Cash Box positions, just the aforementioned fansite which is clearly not a reliable souce per WP:RS. Without any sort of reliable source, these articles are completely null and void, despite the obvious notability of Cash Box. Yes, we will lose this interesting info, but if we can't source it, we can't keep it. Of course, this would also mean deleting the Cash Box positions from other articles and adding it to WP:BADCHARTS since the positions can't be verified. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That argument is absurd. Why pretend that not only you but anyone who would read this are not smart enough to know that the top single listed for a given week on a weekly magazine's chart was published in that week's issue of the magazine?  You're editing the music charts section of an encyclopedia and feign ignorance to such a thing?  We don't require online archives of data in order to present that data so long as it's clear exactly where an editor would expect to corroborate the data.  I don't defend the legitimacy of these sites such as the one at cashbox.com that claims to be run by the new owners of Cashbox Magazine (and am not the editor who cited them), but you can't seriously defend your attempt to source the material if that attempt consists entirely of Googling for official online archives of a magazine that went defunct in 1996, and you're unable or unwilling to track down so much as a single magazine issue and/or whatever archiving of such as there may be offline.  Abrazame (talk) 06:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Cashbox is a genuine source. Why lie about that charts? Sometimes fans work is better than any other work. Can't see a valid reason to delete. Lucio Garcia
 * Fansites are never acceptable as reliable sources; see WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all: Agree with TenPoundHammer. The source for these lists are entirely unreliable fansites. We need something more substantial. Rapastone (talk) 07:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (To TenPoundHammer) But the fansite isn't the source, it's an online archive of the source, whose demise predates the internet era. The source, if you'll note my post above or just give a moment's thought, is the magazine.  More specifically, the source is 51 or so issues of that weekly magazine per list.


 * Delete All Agree with above. Winner 42 ( Talk to me! ) 20:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I don't know that you're accurately characterizing the site. Clicking on the "About Us" button, one finds the two guys heading the organization are not the same person who compiled the chart data archive, and still others are involved in the new incarnation of the magazine.  It's not Conde Naste over there, but at some point something becomes more than just a personal fansite.  I'd have to see a good bit more to accept their notability for new, original data, but as stewards of their copyright's archives, I don't know that we can dismiss them out of hand.  Abrazame (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep – These are notable charts: even Billboard notes Cash Box, in the same breath as its own charts, as a key part of music charting history (Michaelangelo Matos. "Counting 'Em Down Through The Years", Billboard Sep. 20, 2008; 120 (38): 34). A distinction needs to be made between "not currently verified" and "unverifiable"—it's the latter one that is a reason for deletion according to policy. Presumably all these charts can be verified using reliable sources: books like this one, or the original print magazines themselves. So it's an editing question rather than a deletion one. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 02:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep all. The charts are notable enough, and I don't see it as an issue that there is no reliable online source for verifying them. The book source provided by Paul Erik (and the "Related books" given by Gbooks when you click that link) do the job of verification very nicely. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep all. The charts are notable enough, (maybe keep asking for more sources?).E-Kartoffel (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep all -For Musicseek.info, I found a back-up copy stored at the Wayback machine/Internet archive like this copy from 2007 http://web.archive.org/web/20071231123721/http://musicseek.info/ we have to check also if the Internet archive had archived some back-up copies who was located at members.aol.com. You can also ask additionnal infos to Eo--Sd-100 (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2010 (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.