Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of performances on Top of the Pops (second 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   no consensus. I wonder, however, if there is an article entitled "List of notable performances on ToTP" that might be worth making? This incomplete list does not appear to serve much of a purpose. Black Kite (talk) 11:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

List of performances on Top of the Pops

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  of performances on Top of the Pops (second nomination) )

Despite that this article is still woefully incomplete, it is already at bursting point. I can't see that this article adds any useful information to Wikipedia and meets virtually all of the criteria in WP:LISTCRUFT. Top of the Pops included all the songs to make the UK top 20 and most of the top 40, so it's basically a list of every hit in the UK charts within its 40+ year history. The list also includes "performances" from artists who appeared on a video clip rather than actually in studio.

I see from the previous AfD that the issue was that it was unreferenced and despite assurances from editors, three years down the line, not a single one has been added. I can't imagine the list is ever going to be complete (or even wholly reliable) since virtually all the shows from the 1960s don't exist in the archives, and a vast many of the 1970s as well, so entries could be added through guess work since they were hits. There are a great number of articles of minor chart acts which include a "See also" section which links this article (very often as its only See also), I can't see how seeing an artist's name listed here is of any value to also see.

Going on a random year (1977) I see there are 89 songs listed. Given that roughly 200 different songs appeared per year, this will give an idea of how incomplete the list is and how large the article could still get. Certainly the article could be split, but the informations is pointless.

The only way I could see it of any value is to list the songs that appeared on the show that weren't hits, because you can already assume that every hit was included (bar maybe about six banned songs in 40 years). Or perhaps a list of notable appearances, with a description of why each was notable and obviously a source. Although WP:NNC insists that entries of a list are notable, which of course in this case they are, the notability here depends on its appearance on the programme being notable. List of non-hit singles that appeared on Top of the Pops or List of notable appearances on Top of the Pops?

I propose deletion of this down to it being non-notable information.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a very specific, clearly defined directly relevant list, i.e., not a random listcruft (unlike the suggested List of non-hit singles that appeared on Top of the Pops or hypothetical List of non-British artists appeared on TotP). The notability of its entries are irrelevant, since the list is not about these performances: it is a part of encyclopedic informanion about the "T of the P". Wikipedia is not paper and can go to this level of detail. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nothing particularly notable about songs being performed on a particular show. These aren't the Beatles on Ed Sullivan. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Argument irrelevant. The list is not about notability of songs (altough they were notable of the day, hence included in the programme). This is about the content of the show. Contrary the nominator, the show did not include every one of the Top 20. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per well reasoned argument given by nom. If this article is notable, then so would every music program, Six Five Special, Ready, Steady Go, Juke Box Jury, The Tube, Old Grey Whistle Test, and that's before I start mentioning every US program, every worldwide program, then I suppose it would be reasonable to extend to radio programs, i.e. lots of listings with no real content. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And indeed why not? I would love to see the list for OGWT. May be it is just a nostalgy of my age... :-) Well-defined, directly relevant listing is content.  Staszek Lem (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, listing is a form of content. And this is a typical WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, that is easily arguable. See the Saturday Night Live lists I cited below, if needed more exemples could be provided. Cavarrone (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Well reasoned argument by the nominator that which I agree with completely. The list is so irrelevant that it shouldn't even have been created. The info is too specific and not notable too stay. And a question to Staszak Lem- how is this information "directly relevant?" What does that even mean? Directly relevant to what? Guyinasuit5517 (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Answer TofP is a programme specifically for performances of notable songs. Therefore the list of these performances is directly and immediately relevant to it. The argument that there were too many of them is of IDONTLIKE it type and has to bearing to wikipedia policies. I accept the argument that it is unreferenced. But this is curable, at least for the recent years. The argument "The info is too specific" is too laughable even to start discussing it.  Staszek Lem (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * More specifically, this statement - "This accounts for a number of acts who never appeared on the show due to their reluctance to perform in this way." - demonstrates that the arguments of the nominator is faulty, and this list is actual useful irreplaceable information.  Staszek Lem (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Er, where exactly are you getting that quote from? It doesn't appear anywhere on this page. As for your assurance that references can be found, well, the article has been in existance for many years now and has not even got one. Funnily, enough the last nomination (three years ago) also said the same thing and still nothing's happened. As for the information being useful; if it's incomplete then I don't see that it can be, and if it's all unreferenced the information can be seen to have no value whatsoever as far as Wikipedia is concerned. One final point: your comment that another's opinion is "laughable" is not the way to go here. Thank you.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (1) The quote is from the "parent" article. (2) References are here. (3) 3-year long and counting laziness of the fans of the TotP is not a reason to delete the article, since the issue is easily fixable, see item 2. (4) Unlike someone's persona, someone's argument about wikipedia content is fair game. If you disagree (i.e., you seriously find this argument serious and solid), you are welcome to request further explanations. I will just as happily answer: "On the contrary, I find this article lacks many detail (and this limits its utility, but this is fixable)". Happy editing. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see what is supposed to be the specific problem with this article. The nominator's suggestions are worth of notice and his concerns are real but no-one of them could be considered a valid reason for deletion. The list is incomplete but surely being incomplete is a fixable problem and not a reason to delete an article. His suggestions of alternative lists are interesting but aren't conflicting with this one (please ie consider how many lists Saturday Night Live has: episodes, cast members, guests, DVD releases, guests section A – D etc.etc., hosts, five-times hosts writers, recurring characters,awards and nominations musical sketches, commercial parodies, characters and sketches (listed chronologically), guests who simultaneously hosted and performed, compilation albums and videos, feature films). Surely it passes WP:NLIST and WP:NNC requirements, and that is enough for me. Cavarrone (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2012 (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.