Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of number-one singles of 2006 (New Zealand)/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 not promoted by Giants2008 20:32, 18 June 2012.

List of number-one singles of 2006 (New Zealand)

 * Nominator(s): Till 07:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I think it meets the Featured list criteria. Till 07:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments quickies...
 * I've seen some of these lists merged together, something to consider, e.g. "singles of the 2000s" or "singles of 2006–09".


 * Oppose under 3(b) principles. It's exactly the same situation as Featured list candidates/List of number-one singles in 2009 (New Zealand)/archive1, which was thought not to be viable by itself.  The 2009 list is now a redirect to List of number-one singles from the 2000s (New Zealand), and I don't see what this 2006 list adds to the decade list. BencherliteTalk 09:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh really, and how come the lists for United States get to stay? What makes them so special and absolved of being merged into a decade list? (Yeah, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but still). Till 08:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Featured list candidates/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2002 (U.S.)/archive1, to take the first example I found, was promoted in March 2009. In April 2009, the FL criteria were changed, inter alia to introduce what we now know and love as 3(b). Whilst it was nominated for delisting on other grounds in February 2010, no-one raised the 3(b) point. Featured list candidates/List of number-one singles in 2009 (New Zealand)/archive1 is from July 2010.  In other words, if the US year lists predate the criteria change then standards are now different, and they would be vulnerable to a delist nomination at FLRC.  The fact that they haven't been (yet) doesn't mean that this list gets a free pass on 3(b) grounds. BencherliteTalk 08:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The commenter on the 2009 list highlights a short lead as the problem, while also stating his personal preference to have a decade list. But the lead in this article is much longer and with more depth/clarity. There is also an extra table in this article. The year is also notable for containing the #500th chart-topper in New Zealand. Till 11:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * sigh he expresses a view based on point 3(b) of the criteria, and backs it up with links to other nominations where year lists haven't been promoted when the same issue has been raised. Just because the lead for this list is longer than the other one was, or there's a minor piece of trivia about the 500th no.1 single in NZ, doesn't mean that you're going to convince me that this couldn't reasonably form part of another list - the content is there in the decade list already, as indeed is the factoid about the 500th single! BencherliteTalk 12:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Read his entire statement. The lead is short and the whole table could concievably go into 11 single lines. Therefore I don't think it is large enough (3b). In other words, he doesn't think it meets 3b because of the short lead and the overall size of the article in general. Looking at the other links, reviewers seem to note the shortness of the lists as reasons for opposing. Look at this featured list and it's same length as this one. Your oppose is ignorant and superficial. Till 13:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please, try to remain calm and civil. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, Bencherlite also.  Clearly if his opinion is as you describe, the remainder of the community will find a consensus in disagreement with him and in favour of your opinion.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies if I came across in an impolite way; I have struck the opening word of my reply. That 2006 US list, like the 2002 list I mentioned earlier, was promoted in 2009 when standards and indeed the criteria were very different; OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good line here, really, because the 3(b) issues about the 2002/2006 US lists have never been raised by anyone.  Perhaps it's time to bring them to FLRC, I don't know.  Let's see what anyone else has to say about the 3(b) issue, and in whose favour consensus falls. BencherliteTalk 14:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the claim in the lead that "During 2006, fifteen artists earned their first number-one single in New Zealand, either as a solo or featured artist: [list of names]" is unreferenced and not immediately obviously backed up by any of the content in the table. Yes, they had number ones, but you would need to show that these were their first no.1s in NZ. BencherliteTalk 14:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Till 13:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Content fork of List of number-one singles from the 2000s (New Zealand) (3b).  Good raise  23:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Content fork, 3b violation. NapHit (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Mmm there's definitely consensus that the article violates 3b. Can someone close this please? Till 03:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


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