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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

List of Billboard Hot Country Songs chart achievements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These are nothing but gigantic lists of unsourced, mostly unverifiable trivia, far afoul of WP:IINFO. Every single piddling detail is laid out in an excruciatingly long list, of interest to only Joel Whitburn and chart-geeks like me. Note that the Pop 100 list is also at AFD for similar claims. (I wouldn't mind mentioning, say, the longest-running #1 at the hot 100 page, but most of this is nothing but indiscriminate info.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Seems like listcruft to me. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 03:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Valuable statistical information about the Billboard Hot 100 across many decades. We'd do a disservice to our readers to delete such useful information. Parts, at the end, like "Additional Hot 100 achievements" is redundant and unnecessary. The rest should be kept. Orane (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That it's useful is not a valid reason for inclusion. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 03:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • First off, that it's "listcruft" also isn't a valid reason. Second, I do believe that my point about it's usefulness was contextualized. The pages brigs together decades of chart statistics across many genres and many artists and compiles the info into one succinct list. It is useful— for chart researchers, for regular readers, for skeptics. The information is referenced at the bottom of the article. Orane (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand the article is referenced (some third-party references would really help though), but even that doesn't make the article notable because of its connection to Billboard, as notability isn't inherited. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 04:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd advise that you stop basing all your arguments on essays. Orane (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • • You might want to follow that yourself, you have yet to provide and policy or guideline for keeping this cruft. Delete per nomination, just cruft and trivia. TJ Spyke 05:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment→ For starters, how about the fact that the list in not unsourced? References are provided at the bottom of the page from the various entries written by Whitburn, Billboard etc. I am almost 100 per cent sure that inline citations could be found for this article, because the individual articles for the songs contain respective sources. The article was written this way because editors thought it distasteful to have a note/source after each sentence in every single line. The editor who nominated the article claims that the info is "unverifiable", a characterization I totally oppose. They are verifiable! The list is neutral. He claims that only Whitburn or "chart geeks" would find the information useful? Why? How does he know this? And, the nominator brazenly emphasizes that this article/list is being deleted because other lists of similar nature are being deleted. The situation is totally different. This is the main singles chart in American music. Chart achievements for component charts like the Pop 100 etc do not carry the same level of notability.

The deletion policy states that reasons for deletion includes, among others, articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed. Give editors, like myself, the chance to improve the sourcing. None of the guidelines outlined at WP is not provide evidence for the deletion of this page. It can't necessarily be considered "fan cruft", because the subject is of wide interest to a large group of people interested in music, as per the official website, the third party websites that I'll find, the numerous books written on the subject. The article needs to be cleaned up and needs improved sourcing. It does not need to be deleted. Orane (talk) 06:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - All of this information was (years ago) cluttering the Hot 100 page and so I cleaned it up and spun it off. It's sourced and notable and clearly a big part of pop culture. FYI, under its previous title it was nominated in 2008 (result "keep). - eo (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Orane. Notable enough to warrant a separate article. Europe22 (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a list of trivia and statistical anomalies: Two Tommy James & the Shondells covers ("I Think We're Alone Now" by Tiffany and "Mony Mony" by Billy Idol) were consecutive number-one hits in 1987. is not a milestone worthy of recognition. I commend Ericorbit for having removed this material from the parent article, but he should have stopped there.—Kww(talk) 12:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment for the record, when I spun the article off, it was quite a bit shorter. It's not the easiest article to keep "pruned", as stuff gets added constantly  :-) - eo (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment→ again, Kww, we could simply clean up the article, remove the excess, and source it. Orane (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that these articles are trivia magnets. There are only a few statistics worth keeping, and, properly pruned and trimmed, a discussion of them can be kept in a parent article. Splitting them out invites uncontrollable growth.—Kww(talk) 14:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment, well, again, if the consensus is to keep this article, I will be more than happy to work with whomever to decide which of the billion items should stay or go. I remove stuff a lot which many times leads to "why did you delete my item?" conversations, but if more than one person was keeping an eye on preventing it from becoming excessive, it would really help. - eo (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I agree; this article can be maintained in the public interest through patrol and discussion on which items are notable and which can be removed per non-notability. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)]] (P.S. added on July 1 — eo and a few others have done a good job of patrol).[reply]

• Keep This is of encyclopedic interest, and not really a candidate for merging back to the article about the Billboard Hot 100 in general; in addition, the article cites to verifiable sources (such as Joel Whitburn's well-known books). Although a page dealing with the 40 or so songs that had been #1 on the Pop 100 is up for deletion, this article bears no resemblance to that piece of crap. Mandsford (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - indiscriminate trivia, laundry lists, many entries unreferenced thus notability not established. Artyline (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Struck comments of banned user. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. This is useful information and like the other articles about artists' charts and statistics, should remain.--Don1962 (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Per eo, this should probably be in the Hot 100 page, but cant due to length.--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 20:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Entries are referenced; note that at the bottom of article there is a bibiliography (which is used for items without inline citations); several items have inline citations. Article's edit page also has hidden note discouraging "indiscriminiate trivia" (e.g., miniscule trivia, e.g., the back-to-back No. 1 covers of the Tommy James songs in the Hot 100 stats article); patrol can be used to expunge inappropriate items. I would be open to conversations about improving this article (along with the afd nominator), which I think should happen before further afd discussion should the article be kept. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)]][reply]
• Delete This is just a bunch of trivial information throw together. I dont think we should be tracking the movement of every album on a music chart. Bunch of a trivia suited for a site other than an encyclopedia Corpx (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — This article does not nor never did "track the movement of every album on a music chart" (which indeed would be suited for a totally different site, such as Billboard). On the contrary, these articles — at least the country version — has records information organized by artist accomplishments, song accomplishments and album accomplishments ... not merely information randomly thrown together at one's whim but an article that is presented in a readable, easy-to-follow article with truly notable records and each having standards for their inclusion. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

That's the thing. The inclusion criteria is so arbitrary that an endless number of "achievements" could be added to this page, which results in a bunch of trivial information all in one page. I think some of the categories could be made into a new page, if sufficient notability is established, but I'm against throwing together a bunch of trivial chart movements into a page and labeling it as "achievements" Corpx (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corpx — While I would argue that most of the accomplishments are noteworthy, patrol can be used to eliminate those that don't meet notability muster. Still, if the article is kept (either through concensus or by default (due to a "no concensus" verdict), and remember, we're not at that point yet), would you be willing to assist with a general cleanup of the page and share your thoughts as to which "achievements" are notable and which aren't? (Remember also, this page is tagged for rescue.) [[Briguy52748 (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

Ha, I'd doubt he, or the nominator of this AFD, would be willing to. Nowadays, editors are more interested in deleting a page, rather than working on it — which, if you think about it, makes template signs like ((clean up)), ((unreferenced)) or ((notability)) obsolete. Corpx suggests that such lists of chart movements are non-notable and unsuitable for an encyclopedia. But I don't understand why everyone is against music statistics, while articles/lists about sports (NFL and NBA) statistics are celebrated, even featured. I know WP:WAX may apply here, but I still have to emphasize the bias against music-related articles. Orane (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This really isn't the best attitude to be taking, Ozone; saying we're biased just because we don't agree with your point of view. While I still stand by my vote, it looks like this will end up being "no consensus" anyway. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 08:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's "Orane", not "Ozone". And I'm not saying that you guys are biased because you don't agree with me. I'm saying that people may be biased because they cite all music/chart statistics as "laundry lists" and "indiscriminate trivia", while sports stats are treasured. Orane (talk) 05:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WOULD YOU IDIOTS LISTEN TO YOURSELVES? Think about what you are saying. First off implying that Wikipedia is anything but a guilty pleasure is stupid. This place is NOT I repeat NOT at all credible as a source for information. It is not like an actual encyclopedia in its authenticity. Second, lists and facts aren't useful at all, it's true. Sorry. But they should be kept because they are one of the biggest reasons people go on this stupid site in the first place. Oh, look, such and such a show made a reference to something but I can't quite figure out what... It used to be on this site until some self righteous jackass decided to delete it. Those factoids and interesting tidbits aren't useful but they are entertaining and do educate on a minor level. Are you going to just blindly say that knowing something about a current trend or an old movie or interesting factoid is more useless than a large page on some WWI (Look it up but that's world war one in case that page was deleted for all you kiddies) general that NOBODY remembers? In all honesty everybody who follows the trivia rule to such an extensive length needs to be forced into surgery to have a sense of humor installed (irony, see WWI directions)If visitations to Wikipedia begin to fall off it will probably be due to the widespread deletion of the interesting factoids. Like how YouTube has a lot of people leaving because of all the deletions music videos and files. If you take way what people like then ALL that you are doing is hurting the site. Stop pretending that being an edit Nazi is a good thing. It isn't. All you are is annoying and you should really consider shoving your computer out of a window and spending some time, a very long time for some of you, away from it until your douchiness is gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.77.146 (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP user 98.246.77.146 — You may want to read the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions article; while I understand you are frustrated, I seriously doubt your comments add anything constructive to this discussion. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

I disagree, while he lost me at the word Nazi, I thought everything leading up to it was one of the best synopsis of the inclusionist argument I've read, and I'm serious. IP, don't worry, this is clearly heading to a no consensus, defaulting to keep. BTdubs, WP:AADD is an essay, not a policy.--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 14:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CastAStone — Remember, I voted to keep (and my opinion hasn't changed); I was just concerned about the IP contributor's tone and that his argument was more emotional based rather than a legit reason to keep, which is exactly what the essay in question is about; and yes, I understand that said essay is NOT policy. His argument about people no longer using this site because "X" article (or series of) were deleted could be better stated in an essay that is not connected to a specific afd discussion. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

• Strong Keep Other than noting that absolutely nothing about this article's status has changed since its nomination for deletion failed last year, I'll repeat the post I made in the previous discussion:

The long history of "chart-watching" is a central part of Billboard Magazine's purpose and appeal. This history is reflected in a succession of encyclopedic books devoted to the topic, which have been published and updated for more than three decades (see: http://www.recordresearch.com/), as well as popular countdown shows from "Your Hit Parade" to Casey Kasem. The [then-]recent news coverage of Kanye West vs. 50 Cent "showdown" over whose album would debut at #1 indicates that this general interest in "chart achievements and trivia" continues. Artists such as Mariah Carey and The Beatles have released best-selling compilation albums whose contents are entirely based on the types of statistical accomplishments archived on this page. Numerous topics such as the Academy Awards, baseball, and television ratings have separate and subsidiary "list"-style pages on Wikipedia (i.e. [[1]]; [[2]]; [[3]]). This article is well in keeping with those, and others.One Sweet Edit (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – These chart achievements are not of interest solely to Joel Whitburn. His compilations has been noted and referenced in such books as Interpreting popular music by David Brackett (p. 35), The new blue music by Richard J. Ripani (p. 14), Popular music since 1955 by Paul Taylor (p. 45), Hit records, 1950–1975 by David F. Lonergan (p. vi), The seventh stream: the emergence of rock n roll in American popular music‎ by Philip H. Ennis (p. 404), and so on... Multiple third-party sources demonstrate sufficient notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. An acceptable compiled list and sub article of the main. Sources certainly do exist and Billboard is the industry leader of exactly this information which feeds an mmense and worldwide music industry. Inline cites would be lovely and that is considered regular editing and clean-up work. -- Banjeboi 06:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable topic, split from the original article do to size, and has references, plus a set standard on what gets included and what doesn't. Dream Focus 08:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Have any of you ever had a top hit in the music industry? My guess is no, so in case nobody has informed you yet having a number one hit is a huge accomplishment. To keep a song as number one for a continued length of time is incredible. I happened to be googling "Who has the most number one hits of all time?" [which was a questions google recognized, obviously meaning it is commonly asked] and this is the first website it brought me too. This list gave me exactly what I was looking for and then some. True, some of the information is not cited. BUT why destroy all of the information that is correct rather than correct or delete only information that is not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.123.198 (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2009 (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.