Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Zealand Top 50 Singles of 2000


 * 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. Cbrown1023 talk 01:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

New Zealand Top 50 Singles of 2000

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Nominating every page below for deletion.


 * List of number-one singles in 1966 (NZ)
 * List of number-one singles in 1980 (NZ)
 * List of number-one singles in 1981 (NZ)
 * List of number-one singles in 1982 (NZ)
 * List of number-one singles in 1983 (NZ)
 * List of number-one singles in 1984 (NZ)
 * List of number-one singles in 1985 (NZ)
 * List of number-one singles in 1986 (NZ)
 * List of number-one singles in 1987 (NZ)
 * List of number-one singles in 1988 (NZ)
 * List of number-one singles in 1989 (NZ)
 * List of number-one singles in 1990 (NZ)
 * List of number-one singles in 1991 (NZ)
 * List of number-one singles in 1992 (NZ)
 * List of number-one singles in 1993 (NZ)
 * List of number-one singles in 1994 (NZ)
 * List of number-one singles in 1995 (NZ)
 * List of number-one singles in 1996 (NZ)
 * List of number-one singles in 1997 (NZ)
 * List of number-one singles in 1998 (NZ)
 * List of number-one singles in 1999 (NZ)
 * List of number-one singles in 2000 (NZ)
 * List of number-one singles in 2001 (NZ)
 * List of number-one singles in 2002 (NZ)
 * List of number-one singles in 2003 (NZ)
 * List of number-one singles in 2004 (NZ)
 * List of number-one singles in 2005 (NZ)
 * List of number-one singles in 2006 (NZ)
 * List of number-one singles in 2007 (NZ)
 * List of number-one albums in 2005 (NZ)
 * List of number-one albums in 2006 (NZ)
 * New Zealand Top 50 Singles of 1996
 * New Zealand Top 50 Singles of 2000
 * New Zealand Top 50 Singles of 2001
 * New Zealand Top 50 Singles of 2002
 * New Zealand Top 50 Singles of 2004
 * New Zealand Top 50 Singles of 2005
 * New Zealand Top 50 Singles of 2006 (redirect)
 * New Zealand Top 20 Singles of 2006
 * New Zealand Top 50 Albums of 2000
 * New Zealand Top 50 Albums of 2001
 * New Zealand Top 50 Albums of 2002
 * New Zealand Top 50 Albums of 2003
 * New Zealand Top 50 Albums of 2004
 * New Zealand Top 50 Albums of 2005

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a music almanac, and we shouldn't be in the business of keeping track of every top-n-songs list ever published. All the articles I've nominated are nothing but the list, no commentary, no explanation of the importance of the particular list, and as far as I can tell, none of these lists are linked from anywhere else. There's a copyvio issue here too: although the articles may not be cut & paste from the published list, the assembly of the list constitutes a creative act, and republishing the list in full is violating the copyright of the lists themselves. With no commentary or other use of the lists at all, there is no reason to think it's fair to use those lists in this way. Also, there is a direct precedent: see Articles for deletion/New Zealand Top Fifty Singles of 2003. (Also, many many lists like these have been deleted before.) Some are contested WP:PRODs. Delete all. Mango juice talk 21:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Kill em all per nom. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Veinor (talk to me) 22:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Your signature with timestamp_talk:Veinor|(talk to me)]] 00:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep An absolutely essential addition to wikipedia that I have used as a reference time and time again. Triangle e 22:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The fact that you've used it as a reference isn't really a good reason to keep; do you have anything a bit more substantial than that? Veinor (talk to me) 22:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The reasons I gave for its keep hardly falls under the guidelines that you presented under WP:ILIKEIT. An encyclopaedia is supposed to be a reference tool and I have used these pages as such. Triangle e 23:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair enough. Maybe ILIKEIT was a bad idea. But I still don't consider the fact that someone, somewhere has got some information from it as a valid reason. Veinor [[Userhttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png
 * A better rebuttal is WP:USEFUL. Just because information is useful doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia.  In fact, Wikisource is full of that kind of information.  Mango juice talk 00:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Then a better tag would have been to request that the articles be MOVED to wikisource. If these pages are deleted, we've lost a very good resource. Triangle e 01:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If that's what you prefer, say so. Personally, I prefer deletion because of the copyright issue.  Also, I'm not actually sure this kind of thing really belongs on Wikisource -- are there similar entries over there?  Mango juice talk 01:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I couldn't say so at the time - I'd never heard of wikisource! Having looked over there, I still can't work out what the hell it's supposed to be anyway. It looks like a collection of notebook scraps. There are a few websites dedicated to these sorts of lists for UK / US statistics and copyright does not appear to be an issue for these (for example see polyhex.com and everyhit.com) so it's unlikely that there would be copyright issues for the NZ ones. Triangle e 01:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not suggest moving things to a sister project until you have read thier inclusion policy. This would not be acceptable on Wikisource.-- Birgitte SB  20:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete All as per nom. - WeniWidiWiki 00:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all I'd hardly call a list of #1 records to be "indiscriminate". Teemu08 02:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all The Argument seems to be that US Top 10 or top 100 is ok, and other countries are "indiscriminate". Who is the copyright holder? Top in sales is a non-copyrightable fact, whereas Billboard 100 is copyrightable and based on their choosing. See: List of number-one hits (United States). This is an example of bias towards the USA. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as verifiable and relatively discriminate things. A collection of the highest-selling songs in a given country in a given year is hardly indiscriminate. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as verifiable and discriminate list, per BigHaz only if Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is correct that there is no copyvio. If it does violate copyright, then of course, delete. -- Black Falcon 05:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as discriminate and useful, unless there is a proven copyvio. -- Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  06:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - will add comment in a few but I stand by my keeping the lists especially since the Australian and a lot of the US charts are kept on the wikipedia. RIANZ 06:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is an almanac. Lists comply with WP:LISTV. Selection consistent (discriminate) with definition of scope. If there is copyright problem, please send it to the appropriate forum. -- User:Docu
 * Keep While the New Zealand music industry is small compared to the US, UK and World Charts to delete this would be to discriminate against a country on the basis of its size, and that should not be exercised. To delete this but keep the US chart logs would set a presidence: it is acceptable to delete Tokelau but keep the Russian Federation... -- Greaser 08:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per reasons stated earlier. --IvanKnight69 12:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all number-ones lists. Same lists as other music markets (US, UK, AUS). Not sure about the Top 50 ones. Crumbsucker 08:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep useful and interesting page. If deleting this, why not delete all the other music/chart pages?


 * 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.