Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of top 10 adult contemporary singles of 1961 (U.S.)


 * 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 keep Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  18:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

List of top 10 adult contemporary singles of 1961 (U.S.)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )





Top ten lists for secondary charts such as this are arbitrary cut offs with no discussion of such minute details such as entry date, peak date, peak, weeks in top ten available in anything else but the primary source. These fail notability requirements for standalone lists and the data provided is WP:IINFO. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 16:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Keep the articles have a lot of useless trivia, but it does serve as a list fairly well. The topic doesn't seem too specific. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't get it, then why not create a list that includes every song the entered the top 40? These are accumulated simply and only by an individual going through each and every chart and creating these lists on their own without anything else to go by except Billboard's archives. To me, the lists of number ones of these types of charts should be sufficient for an encyclopedia. If this one is OK, then each and every chart has a list of number ones is going to have a list of top tens, when coverage of some of these charts (much less what reaches the top ten in them) receives minimal to zero coverage in 3rd party sources. Per WP:LISTN, the top ten of charts such as this simply aren't "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 07:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A cursory examination suggests that most of the songs that reach the top-10 on this chart are notable; but many songs that reach the top-40 are not. This is a List article; as long as it is a clearly-demarcated way of grouping similar notable pages (in this case, "adult contemporary songs"), it should probably be kept. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This suggests that any published list is worthy of a place in Wikipedia simply because it contains a list of notable items regardless of any third party sources discussing the contents of the list. WP:NOTINHERITED. There are some notability requirements about such lists. WP:LISTN. Also, top ten is arbitrary. It could easily be top 5, top 11, top 20 - all of which would contain fairly notable songs. Wikipedia cannot make these determinations. Lists of number 2 songs have all been deleted in AfD (eg. WP:AFD/List of Hot 100 number-two singles of 2008 (U.S.)) and if something reaches number 2 it must be notable if most top 10 songs are notable. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 04:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't made up my mind on this but leaning keep. I don't agree that top ten is arbitrary.  It is fairly common to discuss artists whose songs have reached a chart's top ten (or top twenty or top forty), but not top 8 or top 17 or other numbers that are not factors of 10, except #1.  Top forty tends to be used in terms of broader charts, but top ten, being the lowest such denomination seems to make sense for the more specific charts.  And ads like this that Billboard used to run in the 1980s further indicate that the top 10 of such charts had a particular importance. Rlendog (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * But who talks about the top ten of the adult contemporary chart in reliable third party sources? Is an ad by the primary source targeting a specific demographic of chart buffs and radio programmers considered an independent source? All this is going to do is lead to other top ten lists for subcharts that can only be compiled by going to the primary source and going through their archives of charts week by week, and which such lists are never discussed in independent sources "as a group or set" (WP:LISTN) If top ten is OK, there's no reason to continue all the way to top 40 since that info is just as easily available. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 18:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  19:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. "Top ten" is a common cutoff for determining a single's success. This is not arbitrary on Wikipedia's part, but on the music industry, and is a simple recognition that there must be a cut-off somewhere. Issues with sourcing should be dealt with as with any other sourcing issue. TJRC (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2017 (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.