Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of artists with the most number ones on the Billboard Mainstream Top 40 chart


 * 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 redirect to Mainstream Top 40. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

List of artists with the most number ones on the Billboard Mainstream Top 40 chart

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is merely a page that may be great for chart fans but this list just covers info for a secondary chart that has little written about it outside Billboard itself, the primary source. The entire basis of this article is succinctly covered at Mainstream Top 40. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 17:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - This goes into far more detail about the record and statistics than the page you link to. This is no different to many other lists like this. — Calvin999  12:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is excessive per WP:IINFO. All it does is recap the list of #1s for those artists listed. It doesn't provide any more context of the significance of this achievement. It's overkill, especially for a secondary chart in a trade magazine. Even Artists with the most number-ones on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 was redirected. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 20:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Unsure leaning slightly towards delete If you ignore the prose you end up with an unnecessary content fork. Also when you have paragraphs of statistics and song names longer than the actual list then it is hard to justify calling it a list. I see the name was changed a couple of years ago to call it a list which I think is wrong and should be changed back if the article stays in it's current state. Still it all seems a bit WP:IINFO & WP:FANCRUFTY particularly when this is just a minor chart and therefore lacks secondary sources to make it a notable topic/list. Mattg82 (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Mainstream Top 40 – I definitely think this isn't necessary. It is sufficiently covered at Mainstream Top 40, and the information in prose can be found at the artists' respective discography articles. I agree that this falls under WP:IINFO, as these are statistics that don't have that much attention in reliable sources, and aren't even for the flagship Billboard chart (the Hot 100). As the nominator pointed out, a for the Hot 100 was redirected. Mz7 (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Mainstream Top 40; merge individual achievements prose that isn't already there to the performers' articles - clean and easy - most of the table info, the most important info, is already there. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  00:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 04:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to Mainstream Top 40 we had earlier decided to redirect Artists with the most number-ones on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 on its talk page. Excelse (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per Calvin999. Vorbee (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:31, 12 January 2018 (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.