Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one country hits (United States)


 * 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.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

List of number-one country hits (United States)

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

All of the sublists are red links, and this page is redundant to List of years in country music, in which all the Number One hits area already listed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   — Cliff smith  talk  21:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect. Rather pointless and redundant.--Crossmr (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This article strikes me as a work in progress (2008 is a blue link for what it's worth), and the article is narrow and defined enough to clear the requirements of WP:LIST. I certainly don't see how the two articles you're comparing are redundant; the "List of Years" article doesn't at all claim to do the same thing the nominated article does. Townlake (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoops, better clarify, I goofed. Looked a layer deeper in the "List of Years" article and there were the hits, though I still don't consider the articles necessarily redundant since the nominated article makes the info easier to find (or theoretically would if it was complete, heh).  Townlake (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Easier to find? Sounds like a WP:ITSUSEFUL argument. We don't duplicate information out of a list just because its easier to find that particular information. We might take information from an article and put it in to a list for that reason but not from list to list. Otherwise I might decide that I should create List of number-one country hits (united states) default sorted by age of the country singers oldest child because its more useful for me to have the information in that form and following that logic it should be kept. We might duplicate information between lists if there is additional information being given in the second list that can't or shouldn't be included in the scope of the first list, but to just take a certain piece of information out of one list and put it in to another by itself serves no purpose.--Crossmr (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - a page of redlinks --T-rex 18:13, 13 September 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.