Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one hits (Japan) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. is substantially the same as the deleted article so I'm taking the previous AFD into account as well Spartaz Humbug! 04:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

List of number-one hits (Japan)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The majority of the page is full of red links and only three blue links. This page is unnecessary and not needed as there is a template for those years. MS  (Talk | Contributions)  16:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm looking at the first discussion and it appears that this page is substantially identical to the version that was deleted several months ago. Is that the case? — Rankiri (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as per the nominator. Is this a case of reposted material?  If so I am afraid that this should be speedy deleted.  RFerreira (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Question Other than the fact its sourced solely to non-English sourcing (a problem) and the fact that the majority of the entries are red links (not necessarily a problem), what is the difference between this list and List of number-one hits (United States)? They serve as a directory, and in the Japanese example, as an indication of how much work needs to be done to start the listed articles. Abrazame (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and comment It will take time to to slowly turn those redlinks blue. Rome wasn't built in a day.  If the result of the first discussion was delete, why is it still here?  Or was the article re-created?   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 02:37, 24 April 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.