Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one music downloads 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   no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

List of number-one music downloads of 2010 (Canada)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Large number of missing sources. I have looked and can't find anything to verify any of the very many unsourced positions; nothing published by CANOE seems to have any kind of archive. We had the same problem with the 2004-present Canadian Country Singles and Canadian Country Albums charts, which are published in a similar fashion and similarly lack any sort of searchable archive to verify the info (see Articles for deletion/List of number-one country hits of 2010 (Canada)). Note that the 2011 article is cited only to a single page on canoe.ca, which displays only the present week's chart and no sort of archive to search previous weeks' positions. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 15:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: agree with nom. Unverified article. MoondogCoronation (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Unilateral misreading/revision of WP:V, which does not require that sources be accessible in online archives. In addition, the nomination misstates the condition of the supposedly dubious 2010 references, which have been documented via webcitation.org regularly for several months. There isn't any serious claim that anyone has been fabricating the charts rather than simply reporting them as they appear, and there's no indication that there are any substantive disputes about the accuracy of the listings. This is, therefore, no more appropriate c case for deletion than insisting that an article sourced from dead-tree books be deleted simply because the book texts aren't available online. If I read things right, the chart is available for reference through a free-subscription newsletter, which any concerned editor can get access to going forward, providing the level of verification looked for. The cited prior AFD therefore appears a dubious "prcedent" and may itself need to be re-examined. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Comment I agree with Hullabaloo on WP:V, but am not at all convinced on notability. Is there any precedent or context which supports treating lists such as this as notable? If there is significant coverage in multiple independent sources, why aren't they referenced? The above-mentioned AFD discussion did not provide an answer, so I believe deletion was correct there and I'll change my !vote to delete if the issue is not resolved here. Matchups 02:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Lists of number-one singles on a major chart can generally stay if the positions can be verified, which would include any chart published by Billboard since the positions are easily found there. Many other discussions have said that chart position lists should be deleted if the chart is unverifiable and/or would otherwise be included on WP:BADCHARTS — there's some Mediabase chart AFD floating around right now with positions sourced to a fansite only, and it's looking like a delete. This one, too, has no reliable sources for the positions. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:03, 27 March 2011 (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.