Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2000s (U.S.)


 * 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.  Sandstein  21:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2000s (U.S.)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

All this does is provide links to other existing lists (most of which are featured lists) then proceeds to just duplicate them without any of the sources, creating a redundant content fork. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it really necessary to have an AFD for every article in this series, after consensus was established to keep these articles? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 07:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus was established to keep List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s (U.S.), which happens to provide more info than the two existing lists because the current one won't provide any sort of analysis until after the year ends. This is a separate nomination because the annual lists in the 2000s are far more comprehensive, well-sourced and informative than this one. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 07:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This was not the reason the community decide to keep the "List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s (U.S.)" article - it was agreed that the article meets the qualifications for WP:LIST. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 07:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition, I must point out that in my opinion it makes no sense to keep only the the article which covers the chart in the 2010s and not have the rest of the articles in the series which cover the chart in the preceding decades. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 07:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition, the yearly chart articles do not contain important statistics for the entire decade (such as the artists whom achieved the most number-one hits during the decade, the artists whom were featured in top of the chart for the highest total number of weeks during the decade AND songs that were featured in top of the chart for the highest total number of weeks during the decade.) TheCuriousGnome (talk) 07:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If that's what the difference is, remove all the duplicate lists and just keep the unsourced trivia. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete because it begins with "This is a list" because it's redundant to the 2000s lists, which are detailed enough at this point. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 11:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete for the same reasons that the U.S.-2010s list should have been deleted. It's all duplicate information; there's no need for it when the material is already covered elsewhere. - eo (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep the article has qualification for WP:LIST. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Except for maybe that whole sources thing. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 12:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Delete as content fork. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 13:24, 11 December 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.