Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of UK top 10 albums in 2018

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 no consensus. Relisted twice with requests for policy-based arguments. None being forthcoming, it does not appear that consensus is forming. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of UK top 10 albums in 2018[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Lists of UK Albums Chart number ones are very complete and through, so I don't think if there is a need for lists of every album that reached 2-10 or 2-5 (why not top 20 or 40 or 100?) There's also a lot more turnover on an albums chart vs. a singles chart and much less coverage in reliable sources vs. songs on peak chart positions (number one being an exception). A comparable AfD was made in January at Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/List of Billboard 200 top 10 albums in 2013. The amount of information jammed into these also meets WP:IINFO. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Noms argument appears to be idontlikeit. There is no agreement at Listn on inclusion for this type of list, if the article creator wants to write it then I'm happy for them to do so. Szzuk (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Bit confused myself now...~~ Szzuk (talk) 08:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strike own comment, my confusion was cleared up in the discussion below. Szzuk (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it puzzling, what exactly is the rationale for a list of top 5 (rather than top 3, 12, 20, or whatever number)? If it is something randomly chosen by the editor rather than something that has any significance, then I would vote for delete, but I would like to hear an explanation first. Note that per WP:LISTN One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, are there sources for a top 5 UK list? Hzh (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See my note at the bottom, there was only a top 5 until November 1958. 03 md 14:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is my concern. At what point does it become WP:IINFO to list every albums's chart run/peak position in the top 10 or top 40. For individual articles for albums, you only list the peak positions of chart performance, more than that it is WP:CHARTTRAJ. Shouldn't that apply for these, too? (For example, what does it mean that an album debuted and peaked in 2016 without any reference to 2018, yet there it is in the list of UK top 10 albums in 2018. Even lists of number two songs have been deleted as extraneous (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Billboard Hot 100 number-two singles of 2015), but 2-10 lists are OK? Also, when used in album articles, at least the chart provider is a reliable independent source, but for these lists, they are the primary source without any other independent coverage of the topic (even less so for albums than songs), which makes "top ten" just an arbitrary number. Might as well make a list of every album that ever reached the chart. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i would argue that there is a difference with top 10 (as oppose to top 5) because many publications give weekly top 10 albums (e.g. Music Week in the UK). Top 5 however appears to be arbitrary. Hzh (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Their website (http://www.musicweek.com/charts) shows top 5 and links to a 75-position chart. They also show a UK Radio and TV airplay charts. I don't think there should be top 5 lists for each chart on this page just because it's in Music Week. Perhaps there should be no top 10 lists of this sort for anything other than primary album/song charts?

Keep all. For the reasons given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2004 (2nd nomination). Narky Blert (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. As the article creator, I believe they are worthy of inclusion, and plan to develop them like the top 10 singles articles which are in good shape and quite thorough imo. Regarding top 5/top 10, until November 1958 there was only an official top 5 published, hence it changing to a top 10 after that. We have the same thing with the singles chart - 1952 to October 1954 there was only a top 12 and this was expanded to top 20, which has been explained on those pages in the notes section. When I get to 1958 I will do similar with the album chart. 03 md 14:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based arguments are too thin on ground for consensus here. Please can arguments be made in terms of policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 09:58, 11 April 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.