Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Romanian Top 100 top 10 singles in 2013


 * 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. Consensus is that the content is from an unreliable blog source. Sjakkalle (Check!)  18:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

List of Romanian Top 100 top 10 singles in 2013

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

In previous years, the Romanian Top 100 was a valid chart, so there's nothing wrong with the earlier articles. This year, however, the Romanian Top 100 is no longer published, and all material in this article is sourced to a blogspot chart. &mdash;Kww(talk) 01:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  02:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  02:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  02:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Erick (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: What about http://www.mediaforest.ro/WeeklyCharts/HistoryWeeklyCharts.aspx ? Isn't Media Forest the publisher of the Romanian Top 100, as stated in the Romanian Top 100 article? Razvan Socol (talk) 07:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Those links don't go anywhere for me tonight. When they did, I remember them as leading to various different top 25 charts.&mdash;Kww(talk) 07:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the link works for me. It points to six Top-10 charts (Songs-Radio / Artists-Radio&TV / Songs-TV; for both Romanian and International). I'm not familiar with the weekly charts of the RT100, so I don't know if they are similar to those or not. Razvan Socol (talk) 08:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Working again. Those are six different charts, not related to the Romanian Top 100. What the blog that this article is using for sources seems to be doing is adding the different charts together and trying to synthesize what the Romanian Top 100 would have listed if it were still around.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep — The official Romanian chart is compiled by mediaforest, but they keep the charts broken down by categories. The blogspot only puts together all the data gathered by mediaforest. Actually, I have some doubts about the charts for the previous years, since the disappearance of rt100.ro. The charts from 2011 and 2012 are based on the Airplay 100 broadcasted by Kiss FM, and that isn't the Official Romanian chart. Eddie Nixon (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that an amateur blog serves as a reliable source?&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Anybody could be a reliable source as long as they are doing simple maths. And this is the issue here, we need somebody to add the charts compiled by mediaforest. Eddie Nixon (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That contradicts WP:RS. It's not the ability to do math that is in question, it is the reputation for fact checking and accuracy.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment This is clearly a good article, and it IS official and valid, why? It compiles the data from Media Forest, the official national monitoring system in Romania (as well as in Israel, etc.) The number-one and the top-ten positions are clearly matching the data from mediaforest, and it was stated by UPFR (the Romanian Record Association) that mediaforest are the current valid collaborators, not Airplay 100. This page must stay! PS I worked hard for days on this page and I consider doing a good job.Innano1 (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Then why is it sourced only to blogspot.ro?&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information and per the deletion in AfD of similar lists. Why stop at 10? Where are the sources for each song's entry date, peak date and length of stay in top ten? Where is the discussion in reliable sources regaring the significance of being in the top 10 in Romania? I think we are good with the likes of number-one lists such as List of number-one singles of the 2010s (Romania). -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 16:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/List of top 10 singles in 2013 (Japan)
 * Articles for deletion/List of Billboard Alternative top 10 singles in 2012
 * Articles for deletion/List of Billboard Korea K-Pop Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2011 (2nd nomination)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 01:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm going to expand a bit here, because it would be a travesty if an article like this was retained because someone closed the AFD as "no consensus". By strength of argument, this one is a slam-dunk. There used to be a "Romanian Top 100": http://web.archive.org/web/20061023091928/http://www.rt100.ro/top-100-edition.html is an archived example of what used to be there. http://www.rt100.ro is dead, though.
 * Innano1 has published a blog at http://romaniantop100.blogspot.ro where he adds together the various unrelated charts published by MediaForest (Note that the blogger links at http://romaniantop100.blogspot.ro leads you to http://www.blogger.com/profile/02260736934288394777 which lists STEFF1995S as a blogger id, and, per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Innano1, Innano1's original account was STEFF1995S). If he did this directly on Wikipedia, the WP:SYNTH violation would be obvious. For a Wikipedia editor to start a blog, do the synthesis in the blog, and then post the result here using the synthesis as a citations is unacceptable. It flies in the face of WP:RS.
 * Note that Eddie Nixon's vote is based on a complete misunderstanding of WP:RS, and Innano1's vote is a vote for inclusion of material from his own blog.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My vote is biased because I'm from Romania and I think that Romanian Top 100 deserves its page on wikipedia. I agree that this page should be deleted, and also the page for 2012, because the last official source regarding the Romanian Top 100 is a podcast from Kiss FM dating 19 February 2012 (http://www.kissfm.ro/emisiuni/30/Romanian-Top-100.html). After that, Kiss FM broadcasted its own chart, Airplay 100 (http://www.kissfm.ro/emisiuni/54/Airplay-100.html) and the pages related to the chart on wikipedia were updated according to the new show. So I'm changing my vote to Delete, as long as the list from 2012 is deleted, as well as every other infos regarding the chart that were introduced after 19 February 2012 on Romanian Top 100. Eddie Nixon (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see any need to delete the other article. I've edited it to indicated that the chart stopped publication on Feb 19, 2012 and removed all data from Feb 26 onwards.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a much more serious issue that any WP:IINFO argument. There's no way this article can stay based on the evidence. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 18:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as an apparent hoax, and as it was created by a blocked user in violation of their block. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 09:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I was wrong about the article creator being a blocked sock, I misread things, but this is still a hoax, since there is no such thing as this Top 100 chart any more, and Top 100 Top 10 is a nonsense description anyway. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 *  Keep  Its encyclopedic to list the most popular songs in a nation year by year. If  http://www.mediaforest.ro/WeeklyCharts/HistoryWeeklyCharts.aspx is a reliable source for this information, then link to it.  If anyone doubts the accuracy of the information they can get a calculator and add up the numbers themselves, confirming this other site is in fact accurate.  And does anyone speak the native language of this nation?  You could probably find additional reliable sources that way as well.   D r e a m Focus  08:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It would certainly be possible to build a list of top 10 singles based on the Media Forest charts. That article wouldn't contain "Romanian Top 100" in its title, because Media Forest doesn't use that name. It wouldn't use any of the content from this article, because all the figures would be different, and it would directly reference MediaForest.ro because it would be about the Media Forest charts, not about the Romanian Top 100. Two different lists, completely different content.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Just rename it List of the top 10 singles in Romania in 2013  D r e a m Focus  14:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Using no content of the current article? Not even the title? What purpose does that serve?&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We're using the list. That's most of the article.  The only thing you eliminate is the opening summary and the current title.  Would you rather a new article be made and have the same information compiled or copied over to it?  What purpose would that serve?   D r e a m Focus  17:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The data doesn't even match. The blog synthesized a position based on data from Media Forest, but the rankings in the blog don't match any Media Forest charts. That's the problem. Innano1/STEF1995S wanted to continue a "Romanian Top 100" listing after the "Romanian Top 100" list stopped being published, so he created a blog, manipulated the figures from Media Forest to suit his own needs, and then used that blog as a source for articles he was editing.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If its inaccurate, the hell with it then, nothing to salvage.  D r e a m Focus  17:37, 18 May 2013 (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.