Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s (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   keep. causa sui (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s (U.S.)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article is all repeated information. There are already long-standing number-ones lists, for various countries and several U.S. Billboard charts, that are arranged by year (most notably Template:USNumber1s). This does nothing but combine 2010 and 2011 together. Looks like incorrect use of decorative flags (WP:FLAG) and an ongoing, unecessary tally of current pop artists at the bottom. There really is no need to have this article in the encyclopedia when we have this data elsewhere. If anything, attention should be made to improving the by-year lists already in place. - eo (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I created this article, basing it partly on the similar series of articles for the UK Singles Charts mainly because in my opinion there is substantial advantage in presenting all this data in one table in a more reduced manner in order to enable our readers to go over a much larger amount of data faster and have the capability of sorting all this data automatically and quickly. In addition, in my opinion this article has also a substantial advantage in that it also contains various statistics for the entire decade which is not available elsewhere in Wikipedia. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't see the advantage. The UK lists are the only ones (to my knowledge) that group things by-decade, as opposed to by-year.  The colors, the flags, the tables, the statistics all seem excessive, unnecessary and against WP:NPOV.  A simple, neutral layout with a week-by-week table has been in place for years now, with most recent years (approx. 2000-onwards) having a concise intro paragraph and a few small images added to the top of the article.  I think we need an enhancement to the 1940-1999 by-year lists rather than yet another way to present the same information. - eo (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * delete Wikipedia is being overrun with micro lists slicing and dicing the same content a million ways. It is unneeded. Add the content to the existing pages, or get rid of the old ones if you can build consensus that this way is better. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and Userfy. I see nothing wrong with a combined list for decades like the UK ones, but this should be done through discussion. Put this in your user space and come up with something people will agree upon. For now, this is just duplicate information found in other long-standing lists. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that the article has gone through numerous edits since the delete template was originally placed on the article and that the duplicative yearly overview section was removed. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It still has created a redudant content fork with identical information from exisiting articles presented in slightly different ways. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets most of the qualifications for WP:LIST. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Phoenix B 1of3. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 13:07, 29 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, &mdash; Joseph Fox 00:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - per Phoenix B 1of3. There is no requirement to have a discussion before creating an article.  And any content fork concerns will be mitigated over time, as 2011 turns into 2012, etc.  While there may be benefit in improving the 1940-1999 lists, that is not an argument to delete this one.  And Wikipedia is hardly being "overrun" by anything. Rlendog (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I still don't see most recent comments addressing the issue of duplication. It may meet most of the qualifications for WP:LIST, but the point is there are already-existing lists that have this information which also meet the same qualifications.  Why have multiple articles displaying the same thing? - eo (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is some overlapping information, but there is information in this list not in the others and vice versa. And those differences will grow as the 2010s continue.  In any case, if the issue is duplication, then a merge would be the solution rather than deletion. Rlendog (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The entire thing is an overlap. The only difference is that this article groups together a decade, so it's basically overlapping info that will be present in ten individual by-year lists. - eo (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is not a duplicate, combine 2010 and 2011 together. It has qualification for lists.--Kaspo (talk) 02:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a complete duplicate. Both show when the song went to number one, in what order, how many weeks it was at number one, and who performed the song. If one is updated, the other would have to be updated with the same exact information and would most likely use the same exact source. Although, the newer 2010s list doesn't even source any item in its list (except one to verify a Britney Spears credit). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 08:02, 9 November 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.