- 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. Sandstein 09:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
List of Mirchi Top 20 number-one songs of 2013[edit]
- List of Mirchi Top 20 number-one songs of 2013 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:SINGLENETWORK chart failing WP:BADCHARTS which violate WP:NOT#PROMOTION Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Newslinger (talk) 10:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SINGLEVENDOR. Not a suitable chart for Wikipedia. Newslinger (talk) 09:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I modeled my chart after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Billboard_Hot_100_number-one_singles_of_2018, so I don't see how it is not a suitable chart when it is just the Bollywood version of this.Boymangirlwoman (talk) 09:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Boymangirlwoman: The Billboard Hot 100 is compiled by Billboard and incorporates data from multiple vendors (retail stores like Walmart and Target; digital stores like iTunes and Amazon, streaming services like Spotify and YouTube, and radio stations). Each of these examples are owned by a different company. The general methodology is explained publicly and changes are reported publicly. On the other hand, the Mirchi Top 20 is determined by Radio Mirchi, and unless someone can find evidence that they use data from multiple vendors, the charts wouldn't qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia because they're single-vendor charts. It's not about the formatting of the article, but about the composition of the chart itself. Newslinger (talk) 10:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability, for Wikipedia purposes, only attaches to IFPI-certified charts that compile data from a variety of sales and media sources. Single-network airplay charts don't meet that standard. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't see how WP:BADCHARTS (not listed there) or WP:PROMOTION (it's just a chart like many other charts) are relevant here. While the chart was collated by The Times of India and Radio Mirchi, both of the Times Group, it would help if evidence is given to show that the data used for the chart compilation come from a single network per WP:SINGLENETWORK. Hzh (talk) 10:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not difficult to find sources referring to the Mirchi chart, here for example it is used to assess the taste of Indian listeners - [1] (it appears to consider Mirchi the equivalent of Billboard charts) and there are references to it elsewhere [2][3]. That would suggest the chart is in fact significant (therefore the deletion was wrong). As for WP:SINGLEVENDOR, it is for those who make the claim that it is single vendor/network to show that (by showing the methodology for the chart), not the other way round. Hzh (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The Mirchi Top 20 doesn't inherit any notability from Radio Mirchi. Of the three references you mentioned, the first mentions "Radio Mirchi's top 200 chart listings" and "Radio Mirchi rankings," not the Mirchi Top 20. The second claims that the "Mirchi 20" only ranks "Hindi film songs," and the book mentions the chart just once. The third mentions the Mirchi Top 20 only once in a long table listing Radio Mirchi's Sunday programming schedule. The deletion was valid because the Mirchi Top 20 doesn't meet WP:GNG, since there are no reliable sources independent of The Times Group that offer significant coverage of the chart. As the chart itself isn't notable, it's not even necessary for me to discuss the composition of the chart. Newslinger (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The top 200 references is likely to be just a typo as there isn't actually a top 200, but there is a top 20. The nomination was in any case based on a false understanding of WP:BADCHARTS which is about the use of such charts in article and tables and not about notability. Hzh (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Charts pertaining to only one specific retailer should not be used → It says it clearly that in WP:BADCHARTS Akhiljaxxn (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but in charts table and prose within an article, it is not about the notability criteria for a music article. WP:SINGLENETWORK gives the example of CBC Music Top 20 of which an article exists, however its chart should not be used in other articles. Read the lead paragraph as to what it is used for. We are going off on a tangent here anyway, as the Mirchi Top 20 article is not relevant to this list, although it shows that many don't seem to understand what the guidelines are for. WP:SINGLENETWORK however indicates that a list from such charts should not be created if it is indeed based on a single vendor/network, but as there is no proof that it is indeed chart of a single vendor/network, I therefore refrain from stating whether to keep or delete it. Hzh (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SINGLENETWORK and WP:BADCHARTS are both part of WP:CHARTS, which "provides guidance about the suitability of music charts for inclusion in Wikipedia articles." You'll have to either accept or discount them both for this discussion. My argument is that if the chart itself isn't considered notable in WP:GNG, a list of number-one songs from that chart shouldn't be considered notable, either. Newslinger (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SINGLENETWORK clearly states that the list of entries in the chart should not be given if it is from a single vendor/network, however that is a different issue from the chart itself. It gives CBC Music Top 20 as example where an article exists, but states that "List of number-one hits on the Radio 2 Top 20" should not be created. The guideline is therefore clear about the distinction between an article on the chart itself, and the use of the chart entries and its list in other articles. Hzh (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The chart claims to be a "one stop destination to find the latest weekly hit songs that are top of the popularity charts" which implies that it uses multiple sources to calculate its rankings.Boymangirlwoman (talk) 05:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not enough to say that its own self-published content about itself implies that it meets our standards for a valid or notability-conferring record chart — anything or anyone who exists at all can simply claim to meet a Wikipedia notability standard if what they say about themselves is all the proof we require. (For example, I could claim to be the president of the newly-declared micronation of the United States of Bearcat's Apartment and get over our notability standard for national heads of state, if my self-declared claim was all it took and I didn't have to show any independent evidence that any reliable source ever cared.) You have to show hard, independent evidence that it does meet the necessary standard, not soft self-created evidence that maybe it might. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. To be notable enough for Wikipedia to maintain a running list of its number one songs, it has to be an IFPI-certified chart that would meet the standards necessary to make a musician notable because they'd charted on it — and what has to be shown to get a chart past that test is confirmation that it is such a chart, not just uncertainty as to whether it is or not. To be fair, Radio Mirchi is a national radio network, so it would fall under a variant much like the CBC Music Top 20 example listed above: it doesn't assist in passing NMUSIC's charting criterion, but it does demonstrate passage of the more general "national network radio airplay" criterion since a song obviously can't chart on a network without getting played on it. But for charts like that, given that they don't specifially pass the charting criterion we don't track or maintain lists of their number-one hits: in the case of CBC Radio 2, thankfully nobody's ever tried in the first place, but in the case of its sister service CBC Radio 3, we have deleted several lists that used to exist of its number-one singles from its network-specific chart. But yeah, Radio Mirchi demonstrates national network airplay, so airplay counts as evidence of notability for a musician — but charting isn't relevant, so there's no need for us to maintain lists of its chart positions. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2018 (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.