Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top 10 artists with the most number-ones on the U.S. Hot 100


 * 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. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor Talk! 08:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Top 10 artists with the most number-ones on the U.S. Hot 100

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This really seems to be bordering on WP:IINFO. First, the list itself can already be found at List of artists by number of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles and List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones, while the rest appears (as its a work in progress) will just summarize the Hot 100 performance of each of the songs, rather than putting any context behind the significance of the number and achievement beyond simply chart trivia. And Top 10? What if there's a tie for tenth, and two artists keep moving back and forth - one moves ahead, then it's a tie again, then the other gets another, you just keep taking out and putting back information? This is just a collection of mini-articles for each of the artists, and we don't need these to start being created for every song chart and every album chart for every genre from every country. Wikipedia doesn't need to become what amounts to a "top 10" click bait site. The list within the Hot 100 achievement page seems enough to me. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 19:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as an WP:OR intersection of two related criteria. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - How is this even being nominated? There is no info anywhere else about which songs made by an artist actually hit number one, and the chart facts and records that came with them. Absurd to nominate. List of artists by number of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles and List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones are the same thing; the former is just a list of when every number one in the last 57 years, year by year, the latter just says how many number ones per artist, not a detailed account of each artists set of number-ones. So you've kinda tripped yourself up there. It's really irrelevant if another artist gets 13 (I believe only two artists have 12, anyway) and that info would be removed and added. Out of everyone on this list, only a few of them are active, and only one actually still has number-ones. So there's another point you've messed up on. You could say exactly the same for the milestones article about adding and removing info all the time. *Double standards*. No one is saying that this list will be created for all charts, so I don't know why you are talking about things that haven't happened/won't happen (WP:CRYSTAL). The list only works when everyone has had double figures, because there are less artists to include, meaning that it won't be as long as a chart where lots of people have had a lot of number-ones, or a new chart which hasn't had enough artists with the most number ones yet. I'm completely baffled as to why this would even be nominated for deletion... —  ₳aron  08:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep while the sourcing could use work, definitely a viable stand-alone list and by no means indiscriminate. Satisfies WP:SPINOFF. As previously indicated, this page goes into detail on each singer's number one songs unlike the general Billboard Hot 100 achievements page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 09:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't the articles on the songs go into detail about the songs, including chart performance? This just says, her first number one did this, her second number one did that, while the lists succinctly tell one what songs went to number one and for how long. How much more detail do we need than that? -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 15:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The main song articles do go into detail, but this would assess records and such not necessarily mentioned in song articles. Also, the general achievements page doesn't even mention the songs by name. Also, this article would include dates spent at top unlike the first link provided. Prose quality is not a concern when it comes to stand-alone articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per Calvin and Snuggums. — Tomíca (T2ME) 11:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep per - Needs improving but notability is there. – Davey 2010 Talk 03:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not arguing about notability here or else I'd nominate List of artists by number of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles too. Although notability wouldn't be constrained to a list of "10". But this is just a series of small summaries of each song's chart performance. The way this is written, you can make the case of making similar articles for each of the individual artists: "Number-one songs on the Billboard Hot 100 by the Beatles", "Number-one songs on the Billboard Hot 100 by Rihanna", and just copy and paste the chart performance sections from each the song articles, and it wouldn't be much different than this. This list is simply redundant and extraneous. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 17:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Haha. "Not arguing about notability here." Then what are you arguing? I've never seen someone nominate an article for deletion being it is notable. I really don't see what your argument is here. There's actually no notability in "Number-one songs on the Billboard Hot 100 by the Beatles", "Number-one songs on the Billboard Hot 100 by Rihanna", because they would only be three or four paragraphs long. You're clutching at straws I'm afraid. The notability of this article lies in the fact that nowhere else has a comprehensive list detailing this info. Try again my friend. —  ₳aron  18:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe I said extraneous and redundant in both my nomination and my recent comment. Your "comprehensive list" is just that. You created something that would be similar to creating Top 10 highest-grossing films in Canada and the United States, adding a paragraph or two about each of the film's box office receipts, when there is already the simpler and much more satisfactory List of highest-grossing films in Canada and the United States. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 07:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * But I haven't created a second list or two lists, so I still don't accept your reasoning. —  ₳aron  08:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's been 12 days. One delete, four keeps. I have a DYK that is being withheld until this deletion nomination is closed. It's quite clearly a keep verdict. —  ₳aron  22:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * why the relist ?, This does look to be a clear Keep imho. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're counting, it's 2 to 4, not 1 to 4 (but number of votes is not how these matters are decided. The rationale for keeping is not very strong based on policy, so further discussion seems warranted. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 03:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The rationale for keeping couldn't be more clear. We have all completely discredited your reasoning. This is such a waste of editors time. —  ₳aron  09:03, 9 March 2015 (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.