Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of number-one dance singles of 2014 (U.S.)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by SchroCat 07:54, 13 October 2015.

List of number-one dance singles of 2014 (U.S.)

 * Nominator(s): — Calvin999  16:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... it documents each and every US Dance Club Songs number-one single of 2014. The lead high lists artists who have achieved the most chart toppers throughout the year, as well as other chartings, records, and achievements. Illustrated with as many images as the length of the list/article will permit me to include. All references are formatted and linked to each week of the chart on the Billboard website. — Calvin999 16:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You don't get it do you. The fact that the Masters has refs from more than ONE publisher is indicative that it is notable. The Masters is also discussed in multiple media outlets rendering the list notable. Is that the case with this list? That is the question, it's on you to prove that it is. Stop getting so defensive it's doing yourself any favours. NapHit (talk) 10:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per 3b. While some FLs still exist on yearly lists, I don't see a reason not to merge such singles list by decade. Splitting them by year is not necessarily informative and does not attract interest from anybody asides its creators. Nergaal (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? Links to yearly lists are placed on articles which have reached number-one though in the See also section. Having a decade lists would make an article far too long, and makes it harder for people to search. — Calvin999  18:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose As is, does not pass WP:NOTESAL: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". There are no 3rd party sources at all, not to mention that the topic in general (number-one dance songs) is not typically discussed as a group in independent reliable sources. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 14:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You can't get much better than Billboard. — Calvin999  15:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Billboard publishes the chart; therefore, not independent of the information. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 16:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, no one else publishes this. We use Billboard for all chart tables in articles, and it's not a problem at GAN or FAC, so I don't see how it's different here. Billboard is a reliable source and it's data collected by Nielsen BDS and Nielsen Soundscan. Billboard is the compiler. For the Billboard articles, they are writers who write for the magazine. I don't agree that this is a problem in any way. Billboard is the best and only way to reliably source U.S. charting. — Calvin999  16:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You're not understanding the point. The fact you state no one else publishes this is a problem. Billboard is the publisher of the chart, so of course it is going to publish the information, Is the chart mentioned in third-party news outlets? Is it notable outside of publication by Billboard? If it isn't then it fails 3b. NapHit (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your evaluation of my capability of understanding, but I think you're missing the point. All music articles use Billboard for everything US chart related. Weekly charts, year end charts, chart history, news reports, etc. Billboard the most reliable source you can get when it comes to US charting info. No one else publishes it because everyone trusts Billboard, that's not to say other media outlet won't comment on something extraordinary, like number-ones or new records. Are any of you even familiar with how music articles are researched and written?? I completely reject this nonsense. Billboard is welcomed at GAN and FAC, so I don't see how this is different. — Calvin999  14:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not missing the point at all. The fact that Billboard is the sole publisher referenced is a massive problem. I understand music articles will use Billboard, that's not the point, the point is that they will have 3rd party sources discussing them as well. The fact that this list does not is an issue. As it infers that the content is not notable enough to warrant a standalone list. The fact that you can't offer one independent source documenting the list infers that this should not be a standalone list. It's not a question of what happens at GAN or FAC, it is simply measuring this list against the criteria, that is all. NapHit (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, they don't. They use Billboard, because that's the sole provider. It's not a massive problem at all. You won't find many chart performance sections which use anything but Billboard for US charting info. It doesn't matter if you have a yearly list or a decade list as suggested above, the sources will be the same. Clearly, the criteria you speak of is useless and outdated. (You only use Masters and a few BBC out of less than 10 refs on List of Masters Tournament champions, notice it wasn't a problem there......) — Calvin999  23:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * How do you propose I source who was number one each week? I'm open to any of your suggestions, if you can produce any. I fail to see how I can source who was number-one and any records or achievements if I can't use Billboard. Other media outlets don't tend to comment on it unless it's a major feat. — Calvin999</b>  10:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You've answered the question yourself here: "Other media outlets don't tend to comment on it unless it's a major feat" which suggests the chart isn't notable. I'm not saying you can't use Billboard, just that if you can't produce independent sources that mention the chart then it indicates it's not notable per our guidelines. NapHit (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This chart is the main Dance chart in the United States, it's not a component. It's been going in various form since the tracking of club plays in the 1970s. That makes it notable. Madonna has 46 number-ones on this chart, more than any other artist on any other chart in US history. Not commenting on something major goes for all US charts, not just this one. Your earlier statements implied that I couldn't use Billboard, which is why I asked how you expected me to source who is number-one each week. Billboard is the only source for that with regard to the table itself. — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>  11:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I've added third party sources   — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>  16:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've tried making contact with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars multiple times on his talk asking him to revisit, as I've done all he asked, but I've had no response despite his online activity. — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>  08:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG

 * Support —  Frankie talk 10:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>  19:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * – SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.