Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Billboard Korea K-Pop Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2011


 * 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. By the way, since Billboard charts are based on factual data, copyvio doesn't come into play here. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 09:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

List of Billboard Korea K-Pop Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2011

 * – ( View AfD View log )

An indiscriminate collection of information, also very much a chart trajectory listing entry into the top 10 (not the chart itself, but the top 10 of the chart), the date it peaked on the chart, and how many weeks on the chart. Almost impossible to source adequately: if every little detail isn't stated in a book such as by Joel Whitburn, ever single week by week chart would have to be referenced to indicate all this info, which just leans it more and more to a case of WP:IINFO. Except for #1's, a single chart cannot verify a song's peak position. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep sounds to be a well defined list, and will be useful to locate and link the popular K-pop stuff. This list needs expansion though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete An encyclopedia is supposed to be for lasting articles about topics, not for lists that change from week to week. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Once the year is finished then the list will not change any more and it is well defined. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Graeme Bartlett. At the end of year, the list will stop changing. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    21:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is just the copying of top ten info (why stop at 10?) from a weekly chart without adequate sourcing. If it's a list of top ten songs, why do we need to know how many weeks and where it peaked. Too much extraneous info beyond the definition of the list that cannot be properly sourced. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Doesn't this fall under the "reproduction of top-10 lists is likely copyvio" thingy? - The Bushranger One ping only 00:14, 10 October 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.