Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British females who reached number one on the Hot 100 (United States)


 * 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. Tone 18:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

List of British females who reached number one on the Hot 100 (United States)

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

Overly narrow list. Only nine britsh females have ever hit #1 on the Hot 100, no purpose for a list this small. The intro is nearly double the list's length. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — Cliff smith  talk  16:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. List scope is too narrow.  -- Bsay USD CSU [ π ]  00:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, rename or merge&mdash;A narrow list criteria doesn't strike me as a valid reason to delete. It is a reason to merge.&mdash;RJH (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * comment What article do you propose a merge with? -- Bsay USD CSU [ π ]  20:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To broaden the scope: either a list of non-US females who topped the US chart, or a list of females who topped a chart other than in their native country. Not sure what name would be best.&mdash;RJH (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Rather subjective list that ultimately is only assembled for the purposes of trivia. Why not a list of British males who've hit number one in the US? WesleyDodds (talk) 02:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, perhaps to merge/expand. To WesleyDodds, why not indeed? I don't see how a list tied to a specific and eminently notable achievement can be said to be subjective.  The list isn't "Hot chicks who..."  To Bsayusd et al, that would be the logical choice for a merge/expansion of this article:  List of British artists who reached number one on the Hot 100.  The list could be split on the page between male, female and group or it could be a single unisex chronology with the textual delineation.  I'm not sure what the length of the intro has to do with it.  I've seen AfDs because there was just a list with no context.  For disclosure, while I did not create the page, I did expand the article intro some time later, and would not want my work jeopardizing the list's existence.  If there's a compelling reason/guideline, I'd have no problem in editing it down; the longest paragraph there, beginning "There were three..." would be the easiest cull, and could go in its entirety.  I'd hope there were a more fully expressed reason, however, before this were to get deleted.  Abrazame (talk) 09:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a pretty trivial list arrangement, and unnecessarily specific. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you think about broadening the scope as I suggested? Abrazame (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom, and point no. 6 here. indopug (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. this does not deserve a separate article. how is this not covered on the hot 100 article?--camr nag 21:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Response/Comment Which Hot 100 article would you suggest? Presumably not the Hot 100 article.  I'd be interested in discussing how it might be incorporated into another article, such as the erroneously named List of artists who reached number one in the United States.  (The list notes only those who reached number one on the Billboard Hot 100, not the Cashbox charts, or the Billboard album charts, AC charts, R&B charts, Country charts, Rock charts, Dance charts, etc.)  I do hope before someone closes this discussion someone actually discusses my suggestion, or any other suggestion other than deletion.  Abrazame (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * i'm sorry, but i don't really see the diff w/ this article. maybe redirect, but any redirect is a different way of saying "delete".--camr nag 23:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete obvious LISTCRUFT. Byronwrites (talk) 04:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Request for comment Obviously this is shaping up to delete, with editors paying no attention to my question of whether the information is relevant to include elsewhere. Indeed, most of the respondents grasp so little about the lists that they have suggested here that they are redundant, when that is clearly not the case.  The diff between this article and the List in question is that the former doesn't indicate the nationality of the artist, nor does it indicate their sex or the year they had their first hit.  It also doesn't give any context.  (Did they have more than one hit?)  There is no context or information able to be gleaned from the simple List of artists who reached number one in the United States and serves only as a link source to artist articles.
 * Would it be unacceptable to have a list called List of British artists who reached number one on the Hot 100? Before I go to the trouble of making one and having you all come on there and AfD that too, I'd like to know how broad an examination has to be to be considered relevant.  If I want this information to go somewhere, rather than simply be deleted, my choices seem to be to create the article I have been suggesting (to no response whatsoever) for several days here, or I could alternately add country of origin information and other contextual data to the generic List of artists who...  Abrazame (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The problem here is the scope is too narrow. Having a list with three criteria (British, female, top 100), narrows the scope too much.  Having a list with two criteria is ideal (British, Top 100) if indeed a list is needed that is more specific than the single criteria list (top 100).  Based on this, if we did make a list of British artists, we would also have to make a list for other reasonable countries.  Now, I am not opposed to making a more broad scope list, but is this really what we want on Wikipedia?  I support a merge of this article into something else, what that should be needs some discussion.  I propose this AfD be closed and changed to an RfC where we can discuss the fate of this article over a longer period of time and in more detail than possible at an AfD -- Bsay @ CSU [ π ]  05:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. the defender of the article keeps thinking that it can't be covered on this article. but the thing is, it can. the main problem is that the list is too narrow. this would be fixed by a)adding a flag or the country in the right article b)checking which year they reached number one c)checking if they are male/female, etc... as to the question "Did they have more than one hit?", it's already there, next to each artist. and if somebody is rally too lazy to check on the individual articles which year or years an artist reached number one, then you could also add the year, where there are, say, 1, 2, or 3 n°1s and a period of time (eg 19xx-20xx) when there's more.--camr nag 17:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment (Out of sequence response) I guess I'm "the defender" to which you refer. Is it simply a political issue that you wouldn't indulge me by elaborating upon the issues I raised, and only have done so to someone else?  You are misrepresenting me.  I don't "keep thinking" anything, I have been trying to engage people in a response to the specific questions I raise.  I take your point that the article does have a number for how many #1s the artist had.  You suggest flags as if I haven't already raised that.  Why not say something to me with the import of "Yes, your idea of adding flags to the other list is a good idea," instead of something to someone else with the import of "Why doesn't this idiot realize he could just add flags?"  My question is, if I start to put flags on that list and add the textual information, will someone come along and argue against the use of flags?  I've seen that happen on discographies when flags are used to denote the country of charting.  I would like to get some feedback that this idea of ours isn't a waste of time and effort that will lead me in the wrong direction.  As to your misunderstanding of what I have written, I am not defending the article as it stands, I have specifically asked if, as Bsayusd suggests, the two-criteria list would be acceptable, and I'm asking if adding flags et al to the List of artists who reached number one in the United States would be justifiably attacked there if editors go to the trouble of working on that.  I'd like to get authoritative feedback on this point from more than one person before I might embark on such an effort, and I should think editors here would understand that.  Abrazame (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Helps if I use the right search terms, I could not find that master list. Since that list exists, there is no need for a more specific list.  Delete !vote reinstated.  -- Bsay @ CSU [ π ]  04:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * you shouldn't take this things personally, really. according to what you wrote, you created this article just in case your edits on the other article were going to be reversed. that's clearly not the way to go. go ahead and edit. if someone reverses it, there's plenty of people who can help you. now, if that person reverts your edits for actually adding information, not to worry!, darwin would agree he/she would die soon.--camr nag 17:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. So not only won't you address what I've asked, you're bending over backward not to do so by referencing Darwin and the death of Wikipedia editors.  My first post here pointed out that I did not create the "List of British females" article, and as it happens I have never edited the "List of artists who", so I have no idea where you're coming from.  As to being bold, what's the point of my spending all the time to research the country of origin of every artist who ever hit #1 on the Hot 100 if someone's just going to cite some arcane Wikipedia rule that this isn't an acceptable use of flags?  I don't take it personally, I'm just at a loss as to what precipitates this complete unwillingness and/or inability of editors to comprehend what I wrote and articulate a salient and authoritative response.  You say there are plenty of people to help me, where are they now?  I'm not here to waste time, I'm here to determine what is within policy, and thought that a group of editors who'd be voting on policy grounds would be both knowledgeable and willing to comment.  Can I get someone else to speak to the viability of using country flags in this manner given the reaction I've seen to flags in discographies and artist infoboxes?  Abrazame (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * well, that was what some people call joke and some other people call hyperbole. you may want to check your sense of humor. as to the claryfication, now i know you did not create the article... thanks. rules in wp are not carved in stone, so it makes no sense for someone to prevent the improvment of an article based on some "flag rules". if you are not to waste time, i suggest you leave wp. it's frustrating, sometimes boureaucratic, time-spending, time-wasting, but it's also fun and constructive. but if you're some kind of time-wasting phobic, then this is not your place. anybody can tell you that. (this discussion itself could be considered by some as a waste of time)--camr nag 19:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, arbitrary criteria for inclusion. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 12 August 2009 (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.