Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mediabase Pop 100 Airplay Number 1's of 2010


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Mediabase Pop 100 Airplay Number 1&
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Many things wrong here. This is a list of number ones for an lesser-known airplay chart for North America. The most notable and wideley-regarded "official" charts for the US and Canada come from Billboard magazine, not this (if I'm not mistaken, there have been Mediabase lists such as this deleted in the past). As it stands there are currently a large number of Billboard related lists, so I don't know why this one would also be needed (note also that the use of "Pop 100" is a Billboard-copyrighted term and shouldn't be used here). The article itself also has major problem with formatting: from the title of the article to the complate lack of sources (the Mediabase website needs a login, so not sure how that would even be done), the "unofficial" number ones (whatever that means), to the unneeded glut of titles shown at the bottom as "top 20 hits", the unexplained "spins" and "AI" columns and the bad capitalization in the headers. The table code is also extremely clunky and most of it could be removed. I question the worth of this list; even the Mediabase Wikipedia article has no sources whatsoever. I'm recommending deletion, if not a complete re-do of the article (if consensus is to keep it). eo (talk) 13:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * delete fails wp:n grossly. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 16:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and, what's more, I recommend averting your eyes as you aim the revolver and pull the trigger to put this article out of its our misery. Nobody should have to look at this thing, even when putting it down. Almost nothing about this page is right. It has notes but no refs. The note links are formatted as teeny numbers in overwide columns. The notes themselves are opaque. The Spins and AI columns are unexplained. The notability of Mediabase is not asserted, but then neither are its existence or area of activity. There is no need for the page, even if it were fully reffed and properly formatted. And what the heck is that unreferenced "Other Top 20 Hits of 2010" section that takes up the bottom half of the page? Put this page down now. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The AI and Spins columns shouldn't have to be explained. They are explained is one hundred percent full detail on the Mediabase page which is linked to on the article in question. It's really difficult to reference any of the data because Mediabase.net only allows members to view data, and it is extremely difficult and expensive to get an account. If the table looks bad, then fix it and stop complaining about it. I just felt like it was needed because it's an excellent view on the pop culture world of 2010 in the United States. Frankly, I don't see why we shouldn't keep it. It's a very interesting article. If I can find good references, I will add them in, but as stated before it's hard to do that. I do have access to the website, so I know all of this is absolutely correct. Tcatron565 (talk) 21:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Redundant listing. If this information is verifiable, it's best placed as an EL on the Mediabase article or a one-sentence mention on some other article which lists hits. If it's not verifiable, it doesn't belong on wikipedia at all. bobrayner (talk) 16:14, 28 December 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.