Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2004


 * 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 to delete, which defaults to keep all. There are valid arguments from both sides, mainly "info is redundant" for those favoring deletion, and "could be improved, possibly to FL" for those favoring keeping the lists. There isn't a copyvio issue here, as far as I can tell - as Fosnez pointed out, there is no way this is negatively impacting Billboard anyway. If someone really feels strongly about it, it falls under fair use - put a rationale on the talk page. If editors still feel the information is redundant, I would suggest merging the articles together - such does not involve AfD. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 16:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2004

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Also nominated: Series of articles listing every U.S. top ten hit by year. I'm on the fence about these; to me they seem to go against WP:NOT and they're redundant, as this info (in a less elaborate format) is already highlighted within the "20xx in music" pages. There are also articles listing number-ones, so these seem a little excessive - do we really need a list of every top-ten hit too? They also look to me like a bigger project that someone started but never bothered to finish - some of these still have empty columns and there isn't any indication that other years will be created (the author hasn't edited anything since May 2007). Thoughts? - eo (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2005
 * List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2006
 * List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2007
 * Delete All except the 2007 article, as that was deleted for some reason in the 2007 in music article. The 2007 list should be Merged into 2007 in music Doc StrangeTelepathic Messages Strange Frequencies 15:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   —Pixelface (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   —Pixelface (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This was previously nominated for deletion and the result was KEEP (see Articles for deletion/Top 10 Billboard Hot 100 singles of 2004). I have recently taken up updating these pages with both the 2005 and 2006 pages now complete. I'll avoid adding more info until this is resolved. Thanks. --Wolfer68 (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. And I even nominated it.  I have no recollection of doing that before.  Anyhoo, would still like to get a new consensus, if that's ok.  Kinda think these should be zapped, but if they're kept again I could help to get other years done. - eo (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep Very useful list for reference 82.16.184.164 (talk) — 82.16.184.164 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Redundant to 200x in music and 200x in Hot 100 pages. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters •

(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * question Is there a copyright issue here? Because I would think that the lists would be copyrighted by Billboard (magazine). JoshuaZ (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment copyright is supposed to be on creative works to protect the artist's income for a limited amount of time. I can see no "creative" work here, and having the list on wikipedia is not depriving the company that created it of income. Fosnez (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep Useful list here BillboardWikipedia (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC) — BillboardWikipedia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Hers fold  (t/a/c)
 * Delete, redundant, as information is listed elsewhere. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC).
 * Keep They even meet criteria 1a of Featured Lists by "bringing together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria". They could easily be brought to FL status. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 23:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I have put a copyvio tag on the article. Billboard's charts are copyrighted to them - they did the research. In order to use the charts people have to pay. In order to view the old charts you need to subscribe. It is OK to write about the Billboard chart, and there is a certain amount of the information we may use, but I'm not sure how much. I would think that this reusing of Billboard's research without their permission is likely to be a violation - but I am not 100% sure. There appear to be more such "articles" here.  SilkTork  *YES! 18:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * people refer to it all the time, so I'd like a discussion of how much of the information they present is actually in the present article. I've removed the speedy tag to permit some further discussion here. DGG (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that an admin with experience of copyright laws looked into the matter and made the decision. The Billboard site has a copyright notice, and the terms of use clearly indicates they don't want people using their service for free: "The Service and its Contents are protected by copyright pursuant to U.S. and international copyright laws. You may not modify, publish, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, reproduce (except as provided in this Section 2), create new works from, distribute, perform, display, or in any way exploit, any of the Content or the Service in whole or in part." and "Copying or storing of any Content for other than personal use is expressly prohibited without prior written permission from NIELSEN." This is not something we should be debating amongst ourselves if we don't know the law - we should alert someone who does know the law. I don't know enough to say one way or the other, but with copyright violations it is usually best to err on the side of caution.  SilkTork  *YES! 09:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It would also mean that every single discography on Wikipedia was violating copyright, as they can have the chart positions on sometimes numerous different billboard charts. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 04:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If that IS the case then every instance of copyright violation would need to be removed. Copyright violation is not something that Wikipedia can do, even if people find the information useful, and not even if it has been going on for years and is widespread. Indeed, the more widespread it is, the more urgent it needs looking into. If we don't know the law here on this AfD we should pass it by somebody who does know. It just makes sense. And looking at THIS where Billboard are quite clearly selling the information that is being given away here on Wiki for free prompts me to urge DGG to immediately restore the copyvio tag.  SilkTork  *YES! 09:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it may have more to do with how much of the chart is published and/or how it is presented. There are quite a number of reference books. for example by Joel Whitburn or Fred Bronson, which lay out all of the U.S. number-one songs or that summarize all chart singles and their peak positions, etc.  Any of these books can be used as a reliable source to verify chart peaks in Wikipedia articles.  The touchy part, I believe, would be if full portions of the weekly data was placed in Wikipedia — like if someone created an article "Current Top 40 Songs on the Hot 100" and then updated it each week and formatted it to look like it does on Billboard's website with all of the columns, etc. - eo (talk) 12:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep all this is a very useful and notable list and logical format. I doubt there is a copyvio issue here, as we are only providing a summary of the top songs for a whole year, not every detailed weekly list.  That information is available in many many places, and is even usually mentioned by DJ's, VJ's, and online MP3 download sites, so it would be quite a stretch for somebody to construe that our publishing this summary data is somehow competing with Nielson's market role for their intellectual property.  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 05:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Ten pound hammer said it best. undefinedUntil  16:44, 24 March 2008 (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.