Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current top 40 albums (UK)


 * 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. Tone 12:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

List of current top 40 albums (UK)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested prod. Fact-based, yes (that was the deprodding rationale), but still unencyclopedic, given that it reports a current event and will need constant updating just to do justice to its title. Delete.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 15:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My deprodding rationale was that, as the creator, I would be updating weekly, as the charts are announced live, to keep the article relevant, and do justice to it's title. If I fall behind in keeping the article up to date, by all means, feel free to delete, at that point. But, as an avid listener to the Charts Show on Radio 1 every Sunday, I doubt this would happen. I regularly update the List of number-one albums articles on a weekly basis, and will be doing this at the same time. Keep. Loveable Daveo (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason the List of number-one albums articles are kept is that they are cumulative, that is, old entries are preserved. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 15:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not disagreeing with that, I'm just pointing out that I regularly update that article every Sunday, and would be doing so with this article as well. Loveable Daveo (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't help but notice that the article is out of date already. There was another chart on 17 January but the article is still as of 10 January. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't see the need or usefulness to have a article on the current top albums anywhere, it's cruft and unencyclopedic.  TJ   Spyke   16:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Aren't there copyvio issues here? Also, the top ten is covered in 2010 in British music, where a link to the whole top 40 on the BBC site is given. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yes, there are copyvio issues here: at the bottom of every chart page in ChartsPlus, it says something along the lines of, "(c) The Official Charts Company 2010". DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) &#124; (talk to me) &#124; (What I've done)  14:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, shouldn't it be speedily deleted? I think using part of the chart, i.e. the top 10, is probably ok but not the whole top 40. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  —  Gongshow  Talk 17:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. An article that becomes outdated and has to be rewritten every week is essentially "List of top 40 albums (UK) for the week XX-YY Jan 2010", which would be deleted for being a current event of no lasting significance. Plus, the accuracy of articles should not depend on whether a single editor can be bothered to maintain it. Holly25 (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. This is news, and would be more appropriate at Wikinews. --NellieBly (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I wouldn't usually do this without rationale but hey another voice :) Oh and I agree with the delete rationales above. Polargeo (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2010 (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.