Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FAR (chart)


 * 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   delete. There is a difference between a source mentioning a chart position and a source that writes about the chart itself and/or the organization or entity that compiles said chart. That seems to be the crux of the debate here, and it seems nobody has been able to locate such sources despite thorough searching. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

FAR (chart)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No non-trivial secondary sources found. Prod removed by author without comment. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources to published material have been added. FAR is a recognized chart in the music industry, especially with respect to the niche Americana and Roots music genres. Google search for "freeform american roots" yields 32,200 hits referenced from artist pages and industry (promoter, label).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbmnstr (talk • contribs) 19:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * None of which mentions the FAR chart. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Google search for "Freeform American Roots chart" yields numerous mentions, contrary to the statement above. There is a case that the FAR And Away — Best of 2010 section is in itself lacking in notability but the chart itself would appear to be recognised in secondary sources. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 19:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be noted by the nominator that while it is encouraged to leave a comment when removing a PROD, it is not a requirement so the fact that happened in this case has no relevancy to the AFD. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 19:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The "numerous mentions" I found are twelve in number, and amount to literally no more than "Song X is at position Y on this week's Freeform American Roots Chart" — hardly non-trivial coverage. The long-deleted United World Chart and various other charts at WP:BADCHARTS went through the same thing: people were citing the positions here and there, but that didn't amount to non-trivial third party coverage or a notable chart then, and it doesn't now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Kindly do not misrepresent my comments. I used a standard Google search (which does indeed give "numerous" hits), not the specific "Google news" search you have used. However, as you have demonstrated, the chart has been mentioned in mainstream news sources such as NME, Los Angeles Times and the Baltimore Sun. I submit that the chart's mention in such secondary sources indicates its notability. Deletion/retention of other articles relating to music charts has no bearing (WP:ALLORNOTHING).  ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 20:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Google 12 links in 'News' -- but 18,700 in 'Web'. Seems very notable if New Music Express, Baltimore Sun, Los Angeles Times are referencing the chart in recent news articles as you indicated. User talk:Wbmnstr  —Preceding undated comment added 20:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC).
 * But they're still only tangential mentions that literally say nothing more than "song X was at Y position on this chart". Do you really think a.) that's enough to build a whole article on and b.) that WP:GOOGLEHITS is a valid argument? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable news sources do in fact consider this chart notable enough to mention it. Some results are hidden behind a paywall.  If a major newspaper considers it notable enough to mention someone was on it, then its certainly notable enough to have a Wikipedia article for it.   D r e a m Focus  03:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * BUT HOW IS THAT NON-TRIVIAL?!?! ALL THEY DO IS MENTION IT IN PASSING!!! ARE YOU NOT LISTENING TO ME?!?!?!?!??! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's be civil here, shall we? ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 03:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You can determine notability by common sense, and not just word for word interpretation of the suggested guidelines. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.   D r e a m Focus  03:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I still think you're beating around the bush. Literally all of the sources merely cite the chart's positions. Do you really think that's enough to build an article on? Get your head out of the clouds. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Common sense is correct. If this was a non-notable chart then nobody would care what its positions were. The fact that musical acts and media agencies do mention the chart's positions indicate they consider it to have a degree of importance. Therefore the subject has notability. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 04:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WRONG! It's notable when they talk about it in depth, not just name drop it. You're missing the "non-trivial" part. Saying "but it charted" is trivial. TRIVIAL. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And just how frequently do people talk in-depth about a music chart? It's just a compilation of sales statistics or, in this case, plays. What else is there to say? What we're left with, as previously stated, is whether anyone actually gives a hoot about the chart. And in this case they clearly do (otherwise they wouldn't quote what positions were achieved on it). ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 04:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to make the point plain. The sources are not trivial because the clearly prove interest in the chart's results. And a chart is solely results. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 04:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails GNG. Coverage needs to actually provide information on the subject to show that it is notable, not simply state that songs had a position on it; that coverage is hardly much more than trivial coverage. Yaksar (let's chat) 05:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So how is this any different from the Billboard Hot 100 chart? all that coverage is about position. User talk:Wbmnstr    —Preceding undated comment added 22:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 05:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete That the FAR chart rankings are cited in music articles does not establish notability. Notability results from passage of the GNG, which requires significant, reliable sources independent of the subject. The four sources in the article are either unreliable, irrelevant, or not independent of the subject. The first, Conquest, John. 3rd Coast Music Magazine, September 1999., is clearly not a third-party source, as John Conquest created the FAR chart. The second (http://www.nodepression.com/profiles/blogs/the-nomenclature-of-americana) is a user-created blog on No Depression that does not even contain discussion of "FAR" or "Freeform American Roots". The third (http://www.tcmnradio.com/far/far1.htm) is merely a listing of FAR rankings—as articulated above, this does not establish notability. The last source (http://www.countryrootsmusic.com/3rdcm/) is a scan of the September 2011 issue of 3rd Coast Music. This is not an independent source. Since no significant sources establish notability, this article should be deleted. Goodvac (talk) 09:21, 21 September 2011 (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.