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. MBisanz ^talk 03:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 in Hot 100[edit]

2008 in Hot 100 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

2008 in Hot 100 hasn't been updated since July and pretty much is a copy of Hot 100 number-one hits of 2008 (United States), similar articles were deleted back in June (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 in Hot 100) ---Caldorwards4 (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC) I'm also nominating the following article:[reply]

2007 in Hot 100 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) see Hot 100 number-one hits of 2007 (United States)

• Keep both. It just needs someone to go ahead and do a good job of writing them. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. The 2008 examples show there's a fair bit of duplication going on, but the shorter one is definitely better laid out and has more information tabled. Articles should be merged and redirected to the most common/used name. Same goes for the 2007 listing. Lack of updates is not a valid reason for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - recreation of previously deleted material. - eo (talk) 11:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as redundant to existing articles, and per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 in Hot 100. These are simply obsolete dupes. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mgm|^(talk) 12:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per TenPoundHammer. McWomble (talk) 12:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both: agree with Hammer. JamesBurns (talk) 02:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Both redundant to already existing articles. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.