Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one country hits of 2010 (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   delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

List of number-one country hits of 2010 (Canada)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Per discussion at Talk:2010 in country music, there doesn't seem to be any sort of archive for these charts although they're published by Billboard. A thorough search by several editors has failed to turn up a reliable archive of these charts. Furthermore, the CAN Country charts are being removed (as they should be!) due to lack of verification. Note that there are a couple sources here, but apparently the source being used has not updated since May, meaning that all other positions present are in violation of WP:OR. Delete unless a reliable chart archive is found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is content in this article that is in violation of WP:VERIFY which needs to be removed at the very least. The beginning is sourced, but what good is this article being only half complete.  Nowyouseeme talk2me  04:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, because this is a legitimate chart. And if this information isn't available elsewhere, I think thats even more reason for it to stay. If I want to know a peak on the CAN country chart, I would look here first and foremost. The editor(s) who've maintained the chart over the year do the same process with the U.S. chart and are trustable. CloversMallRat (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep at least the earlier items There does not necessarily need to be an archive, nor does anything have to be available online, for information to be verifiable. However, there must be something published, somehow, maybe separately for each item, for verifiability. If I understand right the Canadian number one country hits were (are?) emailed out each week and, until May 2010, were archived by Billboard (and cited in the article). The article starts in 2010 so previous years are irrelevant. So, the article hits referenced are fine and the article need not be deleted. I think the later hits must have references (since they seem to be being challenged) but I do not understand from the discussion how anyone knows what they are (email, radio programs?). Whether such "publications" could be counted as "reliable", I am not sure. Thincat (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I completely agree with Nowyouseeme. It violates WP:VERIFY and there is no point in having it when barely half of the artilce is sourced. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with the nominator about lack of verification.--Dripping oil (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I have removed the entries for which there are no references and I have also removed the last citation which I found to be broken. Here is the article when it was nominated at AFD and here it is after my edits. To my mind the article does not now violate WP:OR or WP:V although clearly things are in a rather unsatisfactory state both now and, I am told, for the future. As I said above, I believe the article in this form does not qualify for deletion. Thincat (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But even then, you are relying heavily upon a single source. As WP:ONESOURCE says, a subject for which only one source can be cited is unlikely to merit a standalone article. --Dripping oil (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't think that is going to cut it, the page is called List of number-one country hits of 2010 (Canada), not Less than half of the number-one country hits of 2010 (Canada).  Nowyouseeme talk2me  21:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And also, one source alone generally isn't enough for Wikipedia standards especially when it's the self-publisher that you are referencing no matter how reliable the source may be.--Dripping oil (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Replying to both: It looks as if a large number of chart hit listings articles depend on a single source (and WP:ONESOURCE is just an essay), but your point is perfectly valid. A poorly named article should be moved, not deleted. Articles and lists are not required to be comprehensive. My own feeling is that the best angle for deletion is to claim lack of notability. Thincat (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Yeah, I know it's not a set in stone policy but it just common sense. The original issue still applies the same however.--Dripping oil (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per discussion.--Caravan train (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2010 (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.