Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United World Chart


 * 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. The "keep" opinions mostly consist of statements such as "one of the most important charts", "see WP:COMMONSENSE", "...doesn't mean it's not official" and "one of the best-known worldwide charts". Statements of this sort do not address the important issues of policy raised in this discussion, such as the article's WP:V problems.  Sandstein  18:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

United World Chart

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No independent reliable sources proves its notability. Also it was deleted in French Wikipedia AfD: fr:Wikipédia:Pages à supprimer/United World Chart and it's under AfD in German Wikipedia: de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/3. Juni 2008 (United World Chart seems to be produced by a German company). Tosqueira (talk) 07:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Although I realise it's all over the web (via Google), I fully agree with the nominator: there are no independent reliable sources proving its notability.  The only sites that use it are blogs and fansites. SKS2K6 (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's one of the most important charts over the world. See this. It's also used on some websites like Mariah-Charts. --TRyudo (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: No information relates UWC to acharts.us, and acharts is only another chart site. Mariah-Charts is only a fan site: . They are not reliable sources. For instance, Billboard charts are mentioned on MTV, Reuters , CBC and many other reliable sources. I couldn't find any reliable source which mentions UWC; only blogs, fan sites, forums and the like (they are not reliable sources). Tosqueira (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not because it is a 'good' chart. But because it is a 'bad' chart! The UWC is used on many webpages, can be found in many articles in the Wikipedia (1300+ :-o). The UWC is mentioned so often that we need an article to explain what it really is and why it is not the same as the Billboard and other official charts. And also, as far as I know, it is the only serious attempt at a world-wide chart compilation, which makes it special and worth mentioning. -- Harro (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. And it's an official chart, as we can see here (I don't think someone can say that a chart is official on it's homepage when it isn't). --TRyudo (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Calling it official means exactly nothing. Not if you don't say of what it is official. I can call something official too, it's not a protected term. Now if they had said 'official of this-and-that organization', then they could not do it without permission of the organization, but they do not do that, as far as I can see. - Andre Engels (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That it's mentioned in multiple Wikipedia articles is irrelevant to whether or not it should be kept. The issue is whether or not the presenter of the charts is notable enough to stand on its own, and blogs are not reliable sources to demonstrate such notability. Without such reliable referencing, we can't determine if it stands on the same footing as Billboard or Cashbox or if it's only slightly more notable than a local radio station's playlist. B.Wind (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * IMHO it should be deleted. First, because it seems to be a spam spread all over Wikipedia. Second, because people can believe it's a reliable source because it's all over Wikipedia (but there are no independent sources which proves it's official nor that it recognized by media). According to Jimmy Wales: "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". Third, because of WP:NPOV, we cannot say it is a bad chart and we don't have sources which mentions that. Tosqueira (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: We can state that it is not an official chart, because it is not recognized by the IFPI (unlike Billboard, OCC or Media Control charts). And we can show the nature of the chart by giving details about the compilation method. Nothing misleading or false or POV there. In the German Wikipedia UWC positions are not allowed in the charts tables of music articles and the German version of these lists was deleted just two days ago. Nevertheless we kept the UWC article, because it explains why we don't include them. As you are most keen to get the article deleted, I hope you will then attend to the links as well. Keeping the chart positions without an explaining link like the French did would rather add to its popularity. 'Zero information' can have that effect. -- Harro (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If it is not deleted, at least we should remove all positions from music articles (and explain why in the summary) and block their links. Tosqueira (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Removed AfD Template. Tosqueira (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete no context aside from its self-referencing. At no point does it explain the significance of the charts... or the source, for that matter. Unless there is something in the article that demonstrates the significance of the periodical presenting the charts, the charts themselves are meaningless. B.Wind (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep see WP:COMMONSENSE--L is for Lover (talk) 07:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Accepting charts without evaluating the validity and notability of their source violates WP:COMMONSENSE, I must add here... B.Wind (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, self-referencing, no reliable sources, and the chart's reliability is in serious question. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Global Album Chart is the source of this site: http://www.worldwidealbums.net/2008.htm . It says, for example, that Here I Stand by Usher (released this week) have sold 600.000 copies, the same number of sales that the UWC shows here. Its also the same chart on the aCharts.us. Now see the Global Track Chart of this week and compare it with the singles chart of this week on aCharts.us. Exactly the same charts. --TRyudo (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced, looks like self-referencing or circular referencing. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm not convinced either, even given the high amount of incoming links. I see no reliable sources about this chart, as compared to, say, the Billboard charts. Even Mediabase has a few reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Who's to say Billboard is official while this isn't? A chart is only official if people accept it to be. And this is referenced enough on the net to be official. It definitely needs to be heavily edited though. A series of lists is hardly a good article. Acetic Acid 02:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Billboard is North America's definitive source on music. It is verifiable, as it relies on specific data.  It is pretty much the main source for American music statistics.  By your logic then, would I be able to make a random chart up with my favourite songs and leave it up on Wikipedia because I say it's official? SKS2K6 (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: UWC does provide statistics. On the song chart, each song is given a number of points. 60% comes from sales, 40% comes from airplay. All of this is listed on the site's methodology page, including which countries are counted. It's not a random list of songs ranked by one's personal preference. Acetic Acid 03:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: But it's arbitrary. If you read the actual page, it says that they can increase points for a given album if there are "hugh [sic] sales", and they can get additional points from countries that have no official chart by being on the rest of the charts (how does that work??).  For songs, they use not only the official airplay charts (which is good) but also various radio stations and tv stations, which to me makes it unbalanced.  But the key point about this debate is whether or not there are enough independent, reliable sources to prove its notability? SKS2K6 (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Just because it's not recognized by IFPI doesn't mean it's not official. Where does that definition come from? --Wiendietry (talk) 06:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't find any incoming reliable sources - or even independant sources - which dooms it to deletion for me. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 14:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. One of the best-known worldwide charts is not irrelevant to me. DutchDevil (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Although I supported United World Chart, after learning my lesson on creating an article for Halopedia and due to WP:RS policy, it should be deleted of Wikipedia or merge into another article due to lack of reliable sources. Although there are sources, it only came from the website itself. I afraid this article has to go. Aranho (talk) 04:35, 10 June 2008 (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.