Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2007 (Canada) (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   Speedy keep This is articles for deletion, not articles for merging. Given that one of these is a featured list, I would say that there is a clear consensus for each of these to be standalone lists; WP:SNOW also applies. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2007 (Canada)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


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


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

I believe the three lists (List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2007 (Canada), List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2008 (Canada), List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2009 (Canada) should be merged into the parent article Canadian Hot 100. Neither of the lists have more than 15 entries, and Canada is not a notable influential enough country to deserve its "Hot ..." lists for each year. (I've used the AfD instead of merge because of the featured status of one of the lists might impede a regular merge) Nergaal (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Canada isn't a notable country to have its own yearly chart articles? So you're telling me that more people reading the English Wikipedia know more about the Japanese charts than the Canadian charts? You're also telling me that this Billboard chart isn't notable enough? I just don't believe this... --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  19:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't see the point of this. Within 5 years, the main article will grow so large that we will have to split it again, assuming this charting continues, and with Billboard's history, it likely will continue. No sense wrecking the featured content with a merge. I would give each individual year list separate. NW ( Talk ) 19:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a content forking. Even if the Billboard will hang on for a couple of years, I see no reason why tables containing ~10 entries cannot be grouped by decade. Having a List of Hot 100 number-one singles in the 2000's (Canada) would be way more acceptable than weirdly-passed FL's that barely have a mini-table. Nergaal (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

wiki project Featured Lists was notified of this AFD on 7 June 2009--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all - these are absolutely notable and there is no need to merge or delete. This is a major Billboard singles chart and there are pages like this for many countries, including Romania for chrissakes. - eo (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep all - There is no reason to have this up for an adf each is notable.  Kyle  1278  20:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all - all are notable, and btw, as much as I enjoy making fun of Canadians, Canada with 34 million people has one of the largest English-speaking populations in the world, eh? Geraldk (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep all Coverage by a major music publication as well as Canadian agencies easily help satisfy notability. What you want is a merge discussion—set up a discussion page to merge to a new article, such as List of Hot 100 number-one singles of Canada, and link to the page from all three articles. Then, if you get consensus to merge, set up an FLRC to get the featured list delisted if that is desired. Lastly, if consensus goes with merging, you can redirect these pages to the centralized article. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all The info is clearly notable, and it isn't a content fork, because it isn't forking from anywhere else. I realise why you made this nom with the concern about it being featured, but I agree with Dabomb that this should be a merge discussion/FLRC, not an AfD. My keep is not to say I am against merging. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  23:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all First, these articles are not forks, second its fine to have a short list as long as the list is complete, suitably referenced and is well written and lastly I believe that in canada these would be notible and I as a US citizen am not qualified to decide if a canadian article is notible. To me its not but I am not canadian so I would lean on the side of caution and say that we should keep it if we are allowing a similar article for the US or Great Britain. If the answer is yes and I suspect it is then we should let them be, as notible to Canada.--Kumioko (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:Canada has been notified fo this AFD.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep (under section 1) - The nominator does not actually want them to be deleted, rather merged. If you want to merge the articles, than request a merge, however I suggest coming up with a better argument than Canada's lack of notability.--kelapstick (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:19, 8 June 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.