Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one R&B albums of 1998 (Canada)


 * 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Shawn Teller (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

List of number-one R&B albums of 1998 (Canada)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Every subset of album charts doesn't meet criteria for stand-alone lists. Sources come directly from the publisher just reproducing top 10 lists (no emphasis on #1s or zero actual coverage). There are not independent reliable or significant sourcing. Existence ≠ notability of a topic. Not every chart needs a list of #1s. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 00:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 00:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. As they said, this is just a reproduction and that doesn't belong here. Also holy crud there's a lot of these. Might need to expand this to cover more. I'm seeing dozens separated by year, country, and genre (and many all-genre lists as well) which all look to suffer from the same issue. If this AfD expands then count my vote to delete against those as well. QuietHere (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment – No evidence has been presented that research has been conducted to determine the topic is not notable other than looking at the sources present in the list, which was created less than 24 hours ago. This goes against WP:BEFORE. Heartfox (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The argument presented is that saying that said evidence doesn't exist though. How would one prove such a thing? You generally need to provide a counterpoint of coverage existing before you can through a BEFORE in someone's face... Sergecross73   msg me  16:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Generally one should - but it's surprising that User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars doesn't mention any BEFORE. Though Heartfox's edit comment within the article itself noting the historical significance is more compelling. Nfitz (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Its not like you're required to literally write "I did a BEFORE search and found nothing" in every nomination though. It can be implied. They're an experienced editor, they know to look fur that. Sergecross73   msg me  15:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I did say "There are not independent reliable or significant sourcing"; I guess I'm supposed to say "I looked and there are not independent reliable or significant sourcing." LOL Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 17:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Canada.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm having a hard time differentiating between this, and other similar lists for genres for albums for a given year that have passed AFD. Such as WP:Articles for deletion/List of UK Rock Chart number-one albums of 2010, or genre-specific articles such as List of Top Country Albums number ones of 1998 that haven't been nominated (and why doesn't that title mention which country it's for?). I'm not overly familiar with AFDs in this area - but if this one is appropriate, can someone also add List of Billboard number-one R&B albums of 1998 to the nomination - which is far worse referenced than this one! Nfitz (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Your example AFD is a decade old. Standards have generally tightened. That same article may not survive were in nominated today. Your other examples...really have on bearing on this. Whether or not other similar articles have been nominated are irrelevant. Sometimes bad articles slip under the radar. I'd focus less on these WP:OSE type observations, and more on this particular articles notability.  Sergecross73   msg me  15:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is true that AFD is old User:Sergecross73. There are examples from this decade though, such at WP:Articles for deletion/List of Billboard Top Contemporary Christian Albums number ones of the 1990s. Looking through what exists, there does seem to be a bias towards keeping US articles, but not other countries. I'm not advocating for keep (at this time), I'm simply trying to understand more. OSE, of course, isn't a keep argument. Nfitz (talk) 05:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There should be a lot more lists nominated if the arguments above are genuine. I oppose deletion because I do not feel that adequate research has been conducted to determine the topic is not notable. This chart was active in the late 1990s/early 2000s and many resources (particularly Canadian publications, etc.) from then are not (yet) accessible, e.g. The Record. How do we know there wasn't significant coverage/articles about the chart in it? The data is still valuable, but perhaps not notable enough for a separate list, so I would also support a merge to Canadian Albums Chart, which is what this topic is a subset of. That article can absolutely be expanded, and the table in this list can be styled a different way to minimize length. Heartfox (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The WP:BURDEN is on you to provide evidence for your own stance. As is, your keep stance largely violates WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Sergecross73   msg me  23:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If the sources aren't accessible then we can't just assume the coverage exists in them and leave pages up based on that. And you can't put the burden of adequate research on another editor when you openly admit that the research would involve exploring inaccessible sources. QuietHere (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm not a fan of a Merge with Canadian Albums Chart as that article is two sentences and this article is a full list. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: because a no consensus close isn't going to be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  17:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to Canadian Albums Chart per Heartfox's argument. Stuff can be covered in the Albums Chart article. SBKSPP (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * That article would have sections for other genre charts ie the country albums chart. The tables would be in album rows rather than week rows, meaning it would be substantially shorter because the number of weeks at number one would be listed in one row. I don't think it would look out of place. Heartfox (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. I searched for reliable sources that dealt with the topic, but could not find any that were this specific or close to being this specific. I think it therefore fails WP:NLIST. I'll be happy to reconsider if anyone presents a few sources, but having searched, I an not optimistic they exist. CT55555 (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2023 (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.