List of Hot 100 number-one singles of various decades (U.S.) – Relist all three. – -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Link to the AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s (U.S.) (3rd nomination). Cunard (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 1990s (U.S.) (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2000s (U.S.) (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s (U.S.) (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s (U.S.) (2nd nomination) (which included the 1990s and 2010s articles) as no consensus, meaning that they are kept. However, a month earlier Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2000s (U.S.) was closed as delete. There's absolutely no reason that two should be exist and one should not, so I'm bringing them here in the hopes of getting a common outcome. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:55, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Restore the deleted one for at least temporary consistency and bring an rfc on this. This sort of thing is the disgrace of our AfD system. In a case like this deletion review is not the place to discuss the actual merits, but we have confused the entire question of notability with the question of how to divide up articles. Nobody doubted in any of these that the material should be covered--the entire dispute was merely whether to put them into a single article. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Relist I don't see anything policy based, with the exception of Rlendog in none of the AFDs, the last AFD (2010s) was a clear "needs further consensus" to, as neither the keeps or the deletes have much policy or guideline base agreements (like saying it meets WP:LIST with no reasoning behind it). Secret ^account 21:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] that seems like an equally good idea to mine. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Renominate all three in a mass nomination to obtain a uniform outcome. Sandstein 22:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Mass renominate per all. An RFC seems like overkill. --N Y Kevin @129, i.e. 02:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Mass RfC with 3 options: Endorse, Restore all or Delete all. I can see why some prefer an RfC rather than AfD / DRV: 2 of the articles currently exist; the other is currently deleted. Der yck C. 10:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] It still seems to me to be a content fork which "result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided", and these are redundant. I've tried to take the discussion to WT:CHARTS but have received little input. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Restore the deleted one and renominate all three together. This is a perfect example of where mass nominations can be useful, since separate AfDs can produce completely different results depending on the individuals involved despite the articles under discussion (and the reasoning behind the keep and delete arguments) being virtually identical. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] We are going to have to add in List of Hot 100 number-one singles during 1958–1969 (U.S.), List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 1970s (U.S.), and List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 1980s (U.S.) to the mass nomination because User:TheCuriousGnome isn't willing to wait for this deletion review and its consensus to play out first. May I be bold and nominate them all to resolve this once and for all. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] As I have explained to User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars in my talk page, I would attempt to finish my work on this series of articles ASAP so that when the voting would be held the next time around the Wikipedians taking part in the AfD would express their opinion based on the articles' optimal versions (and not having a voting based on the half-baked versions – which would definitely justify their removal). For this reason, I would agree with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars that the additional pages I created in this series should be added as well to the mass nomination. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] ARE YOU NUTS? This is very reliable in terms of music. If this is taken, then so does every single article about Billboard and most of any chart data, at it is "already on the articles for the songs", or "people could check the Bilbboard site anyway". Delete this, and every single Billboard article must go down with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutshell1111 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Well, firstly, we're not actually debating whether to delete them right now, we're just trying to figure out how to have that conversation. Secondly, Wikipedia is not a system of formal logic, and arguments saying "if article X is deleted, we'll also have to delete article Y" are unconvincing in any forum. --N Y Kevin @880, i.e. 20:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] I'm beginning to think an RFC would be better after all. The missing list was restored and more have since been added. As stated by DGG above, the debated issue is the redundancy of information in different list formats. Should the lists survive AfD, the issue will remain. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of various decades (U.S.) – Relist all three. – -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s (U.S.) (3rd nomination). Cunard (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s (U.S.) (2nd nomination) (which included the 1990s and 2010s articles) as no consensus, meaning that they are kept. However, a month earlier Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2000s (U.S.) was closed as delete. There's absolutely no reason that two should be exist and one should not, so I'm bringing them here in the hopes of getting a common outcome. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:55, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the deleted one for at least temporary consistency and bring an rfc on this. This sort of thing is the disgrace of our AfD system. In a case like this deletion review is not the place to discuss the actual merits, but we have confused the entire question of notability with the question of how to divide up articles. Nobody doubted in any of these that the material should be covered--the entire dispute was merely whether to put them into a single article. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I don't see anything policy based, with the exception of Rlendog in none of the AFDs, the last AFD (2010s) was a clear "needs further consensus" to, as neither the keeps or the deletes have much policy or guideline base agreements (like saying it meets WP:LIST with no reasoning behind it). Secret ^account 21:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that seems like an equally good idea to mine. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Renominate all three in a mass nomination to obtain a uniform outcome. Sandstein 22:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mass renominate per all. An RFC seems like overkill. --N Y Kevin @129, i.e. 02:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mass RfC with 3 options: Endorse, Restore all or Delete all. I can see why some prefer an RfC rather than AfD / DRV: 2 of the articles currently exist; the other is currently deleted. Der yck C. 10:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It still seems to me to be a content fork which "result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided", and these are redundant. I've tried to take the discussion to WT:CHARTS but have received little input. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the deleted one and renominate all three together. This is a perfect example of where mass nominations can be useful, since separate AfDs can produce completely different results depending on the individuals involved despite the articles under discussion (and the reasoning behind the keep and delete arguments) being virtually identical. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are going to have to add in List of Hot 100 number-one singles during 1958–1969 (U.S.), List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 1970s (U.S.), and List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 1980s (U.S.) to the mass nomination because User:TheCuriousGnome isn't willing to wait for this deletion review and its consensus to play out first. May I be bold and nominate them all to resolve this once and for all. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I have explained to User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars in my talk page, I would attempt to finish my work on this series of articles ASAP so that when the voting would be held the next time around the Wikipedians taking part in the AfD would express their opinion based on the articles' optimal versions (and not having a voting based on the half-baked versions – which would definitely justify their removal). For this reason, I would agree with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars that the additional pages I created in this series should be added as well to the mass nomination. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ARE YOU NUTS? This is very reliable in terms of music. If this is taken, then so does every single article about Billboard and most of any chart data, at it is "already on the articles for the songs", or "people could check the Bilbboard site anyway". Delete this, and every single Billboard article must go down with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutshell1111 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, firstly, we're not actually debating whether to delete them right now, we're just trying to figure out how to have that conversation. Secondly, Wikipedia is not a system of formal logic, and arguments saying "if article X is deleted, we'll also have to delete article Y" are unconvincing in any forum. --N Y Kevin @880, i.e. 20:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm beginning to think an RFC would be better after all. The missing list was restored and more have since been added. As stated by DGG above, the debated issue is the redundancy of information in different list formats. Should the lists survive AfD, the issue will remain. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.