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. The consensus is keep, but it's fair to say that I agree with Casliber, that not all parts of the articles should necessarily be kept. The miscellany at the bottom of the Hot 100 list seems particularly in need of a critical look. Hot 100 has now closed as keep for three successive times, & consequently it's my opinion that another try at deleting it might well be considered disruptive. DGG ( talk ) 07:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones[edit]

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

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

Indiscriminate, overlong, undersourced lists. Some of the content is verifiable, but things like "most weeks at #2" are unsourced trivia. There's no rhyme or reason as to what's a notable achievement here, nor is anyone trying to rectify the problem. I would say that the only records of any real importance (longest run at #1 and longest chart run overall) can be included in each chart's individual article, but the rest is very indiscriminate trivia. Previous AFDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hot 100 (U.S.) chart achievements and trivia (2008) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones (2009) both closed as keep, but both were kept only due to WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL without any policy-based arguments either time. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep most of it is well-defined and well-laid out and should be easily sourced. I am in two minds about something like "Most weeks at number two" - but then again that could easily be removed. There are only a few sections like that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the past two times this was nominated, I believe the info is notable, an important part of pop culture and items that are not specifically sourced can be (actually the sources need to be re-formatted, as a lot of this info comes from Joel Whitburn books). Again, the article does tend to become overlong as people add stuff, but I've pruned it down before and can do it again if required. - eo (talk) 10:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep--McYel (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is basically a list of statistical anomalies, and, sourced or not, there's no reason for us to track such things.—Kww(talk) 01:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I see no problem with this. This is notable and interesting. Plenty of trivia abounds on Wikipedia, notably the front page: "Did You Know?" Squad51 (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Already partially well-sourced and can be fully sourced. Yvesnimmo (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2010 (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.