Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest first week sales


 * 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. Mailer Diablo 08:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

List of highest first week sales
It's unclear as to what the article is actually about, due partly to a bad choice in name; and only rap artists have been taken into account for the article anyway; which doesn't list its sources, if any. JD [ don't talk|email ] 00:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Superstrong delete not just per nom, but per it being a bad article. -- Kicking222 01:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral--The name is bad, but the article could actually be useful.Reppin the bay 02:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Utterly useless. Crabapplecove 02:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Misnamed, unsourced, and a-contextual.  First week's sales of red socks on the corner of 86th and Lexington?  Geogre 02:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per .Reppin the bay -- Librarianofages 02:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge...into...ahh...something then Delete Resolute 03:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom JianLi 03:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a good list, gives no real criteria for inclusion, and "it is not completely correct" (which makes me suspect OR - it's unsourced, too). Ambiguous name, but that's not a reason for deletion (since the article can just be renamed). --Core des at talk. o.o;; 03:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge merge the article into their respective rappers article--Ageo020 04:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Arbitrary year criterium, unclear exactly what the criteria are, unsourced GassyGuy 07:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm going to rename the list. If I can manage to verify the information, there should be no reason why it should be deleted.  Remeber that our first goal is to clean up, and if that is not possible, throw out. AdamBiswanger1 13:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The problem is that a clean up means 1) new title, 2) new sources, 3) verification, 4) explicit criteria. In other words, it's pretty much a total rewrite and page move, which is functionally equivalent to deletion.  Geogre 14:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I would have to agree with you. I browsed on Google a bit and couldn't find anything.  I don't think anyone would disagree that this is a fine premise for an article, but unless someone can find something to satisfy WP:V, I'll change my vote to Delete. AdamBiswanger1 15:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - it needs verfiability which is lacking at this point. If this is addressed, then keep.  -- Whpq 16:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - This article is lacking any veritable sources or context. --Diehard2k5 | Talk 18:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Why delete it? It's a good article it just needs more references and expansion. --So Fresh and So Clean_Wish U Was Me 18:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Trivial, random, unsourced and U.S centric. It is not worth wasting any time trying to salvage it. Landolitan 18:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unsourced, bad title, and basically useless. --angers 22:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per all of the above, plus complete cruftmagnet and uselessness. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete arbitrariness personified. Geogre has it, as ever. Just zis Guy you know? 13:58, 25 July 2006 (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.