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.
This is merely a page that may be great for chart fans but this list just covers info for a secondary chart that has little written about it outside Billboard itself, the primary source. The entire basis of this article is succinctly covered at
Mainstream Top 40#Artists with the most number-one singles. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - This goes into far more detail about the record and statistics than the page you link to. This is no different to many other lists like this. —
Calvin999 12:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Which is excessive per
WP:IINFO. All it does is recap the list of #1s for those artists listed. It doesn't provide any more context of the significance of this achievement. It's overkill, especially for a secondary chart in a trade magazine. Even
Artists with the most number-ones on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 was redirected. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Unsure leaning slightly towards delete If you ignore the prose you end up with an unnecessary content fork. Also when you have paragraphs of statistics and song names longer than the actual list then it is hard to justify calling it a list. I see the name was changed a couple of years ago to call it a list which I think is wrong and should be changed back if the article stays in it's current state. Still it all seems a bit
WP:IINFO &
WP:FANCRUFTY particularly when this is just a minor chart and therefore lacks secondary sources to make it a
notable topic/list.
Mattg82 (
talk) 01:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Mainstream Top 40#Artists with the most number-one singles – I definitely think this isn't necessary. It is sufficiently covered at
Mainstream Top 40#Artists with the most number-one singles, and the information in prose can be found at the artists' respective discography articles. I agree that this falls under
WP:IINFO, as these are statistics that don't have that much attention in reliable sources, and aren't even for the flagship Billboard chart (the Hot 100). As the nominator pointed out, a similar article for the Hot 100 was redirected.
Mz7 (
talk) 22:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Winged BladesGodric 04:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - as per Calvin999.
Vorbee (
talk) 09:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:31, 12 January 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.
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.
This is merely a page that may be great for chart fans but this list just covers info for a secondary chart that has little written about it outside Billboard itself, the primary source. The entire basis of this article is succinctly covered at
Mainstream Top 40#Artists with the most number-one singles. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - This goes into far more detail about the record and statistics than the page you link to. This is no different to many other lists like this. —
Calvin999 12:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Which is excessive per
WP:IINFO. All it does is recap the list of #1s for those artists listed. It doesn't provide any more context of the significance of this achievement. It's overkill, especially for a secondary chart in a trade magazine. Even
Artists with the most number-ones on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 was redirected. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Unsure leaning slightly towards delete If you ignore the prose you end up with an unnecessary content fork. Also when you have paragraphs of statistics and song names longer than the actual list then it is hard to justify calling it a list. I see the name was changed a couple of years ago to call it a list which I think is wrong and should be changed back if the article stays in it's current state. Still it all seems a bit
WP:IINFO &
WP:FANCRUFTY particularly when this is just a minor chart and therefore lacks secondary sources to make it a
notable topic/list.
Mattg82 (
talk) 01:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Mainstream Top 40#Artists with the most number-one singles – I definitely think this isn't necessary. It is sufficiently covered at
Mainstream Top 40#Artists with the most number-one singles, and the information in prose can be found at the artists' respective discography articles. I agree that this falls under
WP:IINFO, as these are statistics that don't have that much attention in reliable sources, and aren't even for the flagship Billboard chart (the Hot 100). As the nominator pointed out, a similar article for the Hot 100 was redirected.
Mz7 (
talk) 22:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Winged BladesGodric 04:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - as per Calvin999.
Vorbee (
talk) 09:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:31, 12 January 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.