Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of top 10 singles of Australian origin in 1980


 * 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. Michig (talk) 08:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

List of top 10 singles of Australian origin in 1980

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. Two lists of all singles of Australian or Canadian origin to reach the top ten in their own native country in one specific year. This is not, in and of itself, a useful topic for a list -- while we permit lists of #1 singles by country, there's nothing inherently defining about a song peaking at #2, #5 or #10. And for added bonus, the sources cited don't even properly verify the claims -- the only reference in the Australian one is to the sales page for a book of historical Australian sales charts, with no on-site capacity to directly verify the claimed placements, and the only reference in the Canadian one is to the results of an RPM database search, where the search term results in only the charts for January 1980 actually showing up (and none of the listed singles appear in any of them, because January isn't when they peaked). There's also an arbitrariness problem here -- why just the top 10, why not the entire top 40 or the entire top 100? And we don't have lists like this for any other country in any other year, so I just don't see the value in these existing in isolation. Bearcat (talk) 03:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. No need for top 10 singles lists except for the top 1.Your welcome &#124; Democratics Talk→  Be a guest 04:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment note - Kent's not just a book of historical Australian sales charts, it's the book of historical Australian sales charts, compiled by the guy who literally did the Australian charts at the time. It's a gold-standard reference for Australian music; that it's not online doesn't affect that in any manner, and claiming so detracts from your nomination. I'm inclined to concur on the rest of the nom, however - David Gerard (talk) 13:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't "claim otherwise" at all. Referencing doesn't have to be exclusively online by any means — but if you are doing a citation to print-only content, like a book or a magazine article, your citation still can't contain a convenience URL to a webpage that exists to sell the book, such as a sales/promotional page on its own dedicated domain or in an online bookstore. If the weblink doesn't explicitly verify the content being cited to it, then the weblink just shouldn't be there at all — there's nothing wrong with a print-only citation that offlinks nowhere, while linking the reference to a promotional advertisement for the book makes it look like the purpose had more to do with augmenting sales of the book than with being genuinely informative. I never questioned the validity of the book, just the usefulness of linking that reference to a "buy the book" page that doesn't offer verification of the content being linked to it. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete This isn't an article about the subject. This is a commercial interest trying to use Wikipedia to advertise. I don't find this list useful, regardless. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * DElete -- At least this is not cluttering up category space, but which "top 10"? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete coverage in a single book isn't sufficient coverage for creation of an atypical list category, it seems to me. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2016 (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.