Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one Billboard Alternative Songs of 2010


 * 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 and redirect to List of Billboard number-one alternative singles of the 2010s. Per the closure of Articles for deletion/List of number-one Billboard Alternative Songs of 2013.  Sandstein  15:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

List of number-one Billboard Alternative Songs of 2010

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Duplicated at List of Billboard number-one alternative singles of the 2010s. No reason to cover the same information by year-by-year. –dlthewave ☎ 14:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 14:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 14:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 14:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 14:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of Billboard number-one alternative singles of the 2010s, as a reasonable alternative search term per WP:ATD-R.  >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 15:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is there a reason why the 2010 article is being singled out in particular? Because there are thirty other articles just like this one, for the last 30 years of music. This discussion of one year doesn't really make sense. A new one discussing them collectively is probably a better choice. Sergecross73   msg me  16:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I had attempted to redirect them all the individual year lists working backwards (2017 back to 1990). All they were "this is a list of number ones on this chart for this year" while the newer decade lists were well-organized and comprehensive without becoming a sprawling, cluttered mess. During that process, an editor reverted back to the original lists for 2010 on. A redirect to List of Billboard number-one alternative singles of the 2010s should be sufficient as clearly a WP:CFORK. This one has not been singled out but nominated separately from the others; I'm not sure why they weren't bundled together, however. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 16:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the software doesn't do it automatically, you have to follow instructions at WP:MULTIAFD and take it from there., what if these were withdrawn and then re-filed as one bundle? It would ensure that they got consistent treatment.  >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 16:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I nominated the 2010-2014 articles and User:Atsme nominated 2015-2016. It's turning into a bit of a mess. Should I withdraw them so that they can be bundled? I'm not quite familiar with that process. –dlthewave ☎ 18:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd say what's done is done and just let these run their course. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 19:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ...hopefully remembering to bundle the other 26 ;)   >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 11:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Its gonna be messy if these separate discussions come to different conclusions. Sergecross73   msg me  02:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as copyvio. This is Billboard's intellectual property, a creative work that we do not have the right to reproduce in full, even with credit. Jclemens (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This sort of rationale would have us deleting all the Billboard and similar music chart articles. We have hundreds of them, some existing for over a decade. I highly doubt we've overlooked hundreds of high profile copyright violations for years. This is an overzealous interpretation of COPYVIO. If it's deleted, it won't be due to this... Sergecross73   msg me  02:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It could be an issue if a published chart was being reproduced here in full (say each 1-100 song and its position on the current Hot 100), but that is not the case. I know it's been discussed before and lists such as these presented in this manner are not a copyright violation. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 08:59, 31 December 2017 (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.