Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s (U.S.) (3rd 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   no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s (U.S.)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Procedural renomination per Deletion review. I am neutral on this issue. Alpha_Quadrant   (talk)  02:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 12:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as redundant to the individual listings for Hot 100 number-one singles per year (e.g. List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2011 (U.S.)). Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Music is frequently identifies by the decade in which it is recorded, so this is a perfectly valid list by that standard. Stedrick (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep These articles meet most of the qualifications for WP:LIST. In addition, they also contain information not available in the individual listings for Hot 100 number-one singles per year. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel that including the label and other info is WP:IINFO. Most other lists include just the date of the chart, plus the name of the song and artist. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the record labels are notable enough to be included in the Billboard charts - this external link suggests that Billboard magazine would agree with me on that (It is also worth noting that the label companies also appear in our UK Singles Chart number ones series of articles). In addition, it is worth noting that these articles also contain important statistical information which does not appear anywhere else in Wikipedia, which in my opinion would be of value to many people. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a content fork and "content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided". Information that is discriminate can be merged to the list for the individual year or List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets the requirements of WP:LIST. There is no content fork here, and while there is some overlapping information with other lists, there is also separate information (which is not at all an indiscriminate collection of information) and so the lists are not redundant. Rlendog (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - same reasons as before. Info is redundant. - eo (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that there may be something of a content fork here, although, if we do have to get rid of one set of articles, I would personally prefer to keep the decades lists – they contain relevant information not readily available elsewhere on Wikipedia; information that an encyclopedia reader could quite conceivably want to look up. For example, without these lists, where might a reader find out which artist spent the most number of weeks at the top of the Hot 100 chart during the nineties? (It was Mariah Carey, if anyone's wondering.) A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 12:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Such statistical trivia can be merged to List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones or into a spinoff of that article such as List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements by decade. Then info not available in the yearly lists is retained and the redundancy of having and maintaining identical lists of #1's is eliminated. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, one could argue that since the sortable lists in the number-ones by decades articles do allow an easier, quicker and more efficient navigation through a larger amount of data AND since they do contain essential information not readily available elsewhere on Wikipedia (which is presented in the same way as in our UK number-ones articles), if we would have to choose between them, it would actually be better to keep the number-ones by decades articles over the yearly number-ones articles. The extended overviews in the yearly number-ones articles could easily be merged to the the number-ones by decades articles and the tables which exist in the yearly number-ones articles could easily be merged to articles such as the 2012 in American music. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is something that should have been taken to appropriate talk pages first. Which way is better is not the purpose of this AfD. There is no need to present identical information (which are the lists not the associated trivia) in two different formats. This is a content fork and the newer lists should be deleted. They can be moved to user space and the author can present a case to the Record Charts project page for the lists by decade. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OR we could open a merge discussion instead and let the entire Wikipedia community have a say on this matter (the common procedure in such cases). TheCuriousGnome (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per 1st AfD. Have merge discussion after close if needed if better to place content in different place.--Milowent • hasspoken  03:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete all no notability.  Individual songs may be notable but lumping together is not notable as the statistic is arbitrary.Curb Chain (talk) 03:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How are "number one singles" arbitrary? It is a particular achievement that is widely reported and discussed in reliable sources. Rlendog (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Number one singles are not. The number "100" is: this article lists only the 100 so it is arbitrary.Curb Chain (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2012 (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.