Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. v/r - TP 01:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Undersourced, indiscriminate. There's no criterion for what constitutes a milestone; it's just a catchall trivia list that goes on forever. Previous AFDs have called for a keep just because some of it is sourced, but there's just no control over it and it's only getting bigger and less discriminate. Last AFDs were full of WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ILIKEITs — I can't see a single policy based reason for keeping. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 12:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - again? As with past nom, I believe the info here is notable.  Most of it was in the original Billboard Hot 100 article, but spun off once that got too long.  The article does need sources, and I do keep an eye on this, and perhaps (as in the past) some cutting-down/pruning needs to be done so it's not such a dumping ground of minutae.  But overall I say it's a keeper, and I'll work with whomever to get it in a more presentable condition. - eo (talk) 12:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So "keep but fix". Are you going to try and fix it, or are you just going to hope the Magical Article Fairy sprinkles her dust on it like EVERYONE ELSE who says "keep but fix"? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 12:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * TPH: If you look at the history of this article and its Talk Page, you will see that I have, several times, worked with others to trim and maintain this article to keep it from getting carried away. I can't patrol everything all of the time. - eo (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete This list is basically a set of statistical anomalies. It was split off of the original article because it tends to grow without bound, and that tendency doesn't go away by splitting it off. Every song in every position is notable in some way: the first song that only occupied prime numbers on the chart;the first song since 2009 whose chart positions when read backwards constitute a Fibonacci sequence; the highest position ever reached by a boy band fronted by a transgender Filipino; something. There's no limits or controls because Billboard has a pressure to hype every chart and "chartwatcher" blogs have to fill column inches. There's nothing of merit here, and it's time to admit it.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The place for this sort of info is on Billboard's own website, or on enthusiasts' websites. The issue is given away in the first sentence that claims in bold letters that it's a repository of significant achievements and milestones but fails to define what that means. asnac (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge Rationale for previous SK support: I do not share the opinion of know-it-all Wikipedians who believe we should dismiss the previous consensus. However, I do see valid concerns for the article.  Instead of just whining and trying to delete it altogether, however, let's trim the fat from it, and rewrite the introduction to clarify that new SECTIONS should not be added without approval on the talk page (as well as re-emphasizing the need for citation).  Since we already have several people clearly offended by the article's current state, they will undoubtedly be happy to take the lead on this overhaul. - 72.192.218.251 (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The above is the user's first edit. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Having now logged in, I take responsibility for the "Strong Keep" above - while I am not a particularly established Wikipedian, I clearly have worked on this site before. Wise individuals will note, however, that even sincere Wiki-virgins are capable of understanding the virtues of WP, and can formulate cogent arguments based on its principles.  I also want to take the opportunity to elaborate on my reasoning, which perhaps could be made more clear.  As WP has had no fundamental paradigm shifts since the previous deletion nomination, I see no reason to overrule the first verdict.  Indeed, I do not see ANY convincing reason to delete the ENTIRE ARTICLE based on the deletion support thus far - just to make an effort to rein in its expansion, which I entirely agree with.  I already made an effort earlier to begin removing certain extraneous (admittedly, just what I consider to be extraneous) detail from the page, but surely people cannot contest the merit of certain, indisputably momentous milestones, such as longest run at #1?  The fact is, a page with a more restricted scope CAN feature only notable information, CAN be properly sourced, and CAN be properly regulated - so why throw out the baby with the bathwater?  Don't forget, WP has no deadlines. - Drlight11 (talk) 07:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * After a few days of reflection, as well as reviewing WP policies relating to trivia, I have downgraded my opinion to Merge. I now agree that this should not be its own article, and I think that the question of what is a noteworthy achievement is best answered by what would not be out of place on the Hot 100 article itself.  Many of the feats cited on the "List..." page should be relocated to articles on the accomplishing entities themselves (for example, the article for Katy Perry's album "Teenage Dream" can detail its many records).  Regarding the previous consensus decisions, I would now argue that this article's tendency to include increasingly superfluous information is inherent, that this could not have been fully predicted in previous discussions (since the tendency is only highlighted by the article continually straying from said decisions), and that, therefore, previous discussions were not as well-informed as this one.  - 72.192.212.43 (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The number of times someone edits is irrelevant, anyone may vote/make a statement about articles for deletion. Personally, I rarely log in.Squad51 (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is just an accumulation of questionable facts about the Hot 100. "Milestone" is an inappropriate term to use in this situation, as there is not a clear definition of what a milestone is (in terms of Wikipedia), and I reject it. 11coolguy12 (talk) 04:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just curious, would renaming the article and removing the word "milestone" change your opinion about it? - eo (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would consider it. However, certain sections, such as "most number two hits" are a little controversial and would be better off deleted. 11coolguy12 (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But for now, I'm sticking by my vote. 11coolguy12 (talk) 11:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep A highly detailed, organized and categorized list, countless references, this seems entirely salvageble. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Highly detailed, organized and categorized are entirely subjective. Your !vote is purely WP:ILIKEIT. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Milestones in Billboard have been the subject of books and music historians.  Much, if not most of, Wikipedia is built on enthusiasts' interests.  Look at List of Family Guy Episodes, List of Star Wars planets, Fairy chess pieces, ad nauseum.Squad51 (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your !vote is entirely WP:OSE. Not valid, try agian. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Everything up until the OSE argument is very much valid. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note:This is actually the fourth nomination, not the second.Squad51 (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Once again this same nominator renominates something for deletion that ended in keep the last time he tried. Whenever someone spends that many weeks at number one, or whatever the achievement is, it is mentioned in the media.  They do reference the Billboard quite often in places that cover anything music related.   D r e a m Focus  18:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your !vote does not address the big glob of cruft at the bottom that is unsourced, nor the total lack of criterion for what is an "achievement". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with an article, then handle it by discussing on the talk page and editing it. You don't delete an entire article because you don't like the bottom part of it.  Do you doubt that the bulk of things listed here can easily be sourced?   D r e a m Focus  09:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The nominator has stated his reasons for deletion above. 11coolguy12 (talk) 10:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My point is that even the stuff that is sourced does not seem relevant. Longest run at #1, fine. Most weeks on chart, fine. The rest I feel is nothing but trivia. Tell me how it's not just a random catchall without focus. And we don't do random catchalls without focus; see WP:TRIVIA. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 13:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Interesting, informative and needed. Rhain1999 (talk) 10:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your vote is WP:ILIKEIT. Just saying. 11coolguy12 (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – echoing User:Squad51's argument (minus the WP:OTHERSTUFF), surely if chart achievements are the the subject of books and studies of music historians, it's worthy of an encyclopedia article. Could definitely be cleaned up though. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:33, 3 November 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.