Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of artists by total number of U.S. number-one singles

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. (X! · talk) · @751 · 17:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of artists by total number of U.S. number-one singles[edit]

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

From the article's title, it appears that this page intends to list every artist who has topped the Billboard Hot 100 along with the title of each of their number songs, which I believe is an excessive listing of statistics. From the article's content, it might be a list of the artists with the highest number of number ones, which is already included in the List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones. Liqudluck✽talk 04:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 05:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per issues raised above. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 05:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking at the article's edit history for the last couple of years, I don't see any major increases in size, as would occur if someone was trying to expand the article to cover every artist who has topped the Billboard Hot 100. Rather, the article is limited only to listing the nine artists who have had at least 10 #1's each and their respective chart-topping songs. As long as the article remains limited in scope -- and seemingly, it has remained limited for the last couple of years -- I don't see a problem here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see this as being improved without destroying the original concept. This has never been anything other than a list of nine artists, as a click on any part of the [history] will demonstrate. For those nine artists, it provides, in a bulky, unreadable form, data on the name of each number one song, the year of its release, the number of weeks it remained at number one. Anyone expecting to find a true list of artists by number of #1 hits will not see it here. If kept, call it what it is, Detailed analysis of the nine best-selling musical artists since 1955 instead of this misleading title. Mandsford (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. High-maintenance list. This is a database query, not an encyclopedia article. --John Nagle (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No opinion on the merits of this article at this time, except to say that if kept this should be renamed to something like "list of musicians by total number of U.S. number-one singles". "Artists" is vague and POV. Them From Space 22:58, 10 January 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.