Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one albums in Australia during the 1960s


 * 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. PhilKnight (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

List of number-one albums in Australia during the 1960s

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Each individual year of number-one albums listed on this page has been given its own article. Classicrockfan42 (talk) 04:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete in that case because then this is a duplicate. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 04:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete (ec) It appears to me that this is just a compilation list of other articles.  RC-0722 361.0/ 1  04:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - There's no reason we need a full list like this when we have each individual year with it's own article --  Darth Mike   ( Talk  • Contribs ) 04:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   —Grahame (talk) 05:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't believe this falls into one of the grounds for deletion. It should be discussed as part of the merge process. It may be that the yearly ones should be merged into the decade's lists instead. Assize (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Despite the fact that an above comment gives the impression that the individual articles were created before the "compilation" decade articles, this is not the case. The individual articles were only recently created by Classicrockfan42. But I think that this will probably come down to a matter of one going, and since this is the option nominated for deletion, I guess it'll have to go. To have two sets of articles on the same thing is redundant; despite the fact creating individual articles for every single year makes it a little bit more complicated, both types of listings basically do the same thing anyway.  Ss112  ( Talk here! ) 07:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I gave no such impression. Personally I think the decades list are better. However, this is Wikipedia, so no page gets priority over the other due to when it is created. Each classification is valid, so the proper process should be a merge discussion, not summary deletion of one valid option. Assize (talk) 10:07, 27 August 2008 (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.