Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of best-selling singles in Australia

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 keep. There is consensus here that we should have this list in some form, which some support for moving the list to a better title. This can be done by any editor and can be discussed on the talk page. Davewild (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling singles in Australia

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

The content in this list is unable to be verified. Any single can get a platinum certification in Australia but doesn't actually reflect the sales of it. Read these two articles for more info. [1] [2] Till 12:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep all information verified by the Australian music industry and a Platinum record is given at 70,000 sales so your argument is flawedSeasider91 (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- SOrry but your argument is flawed. Australian certifications are based on shipments, not sales. There's a difference. Unless documented by a reliable source, no-one will ever know what the best-selling singles of Australia are. Till 13:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and explain criteria used. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:DEL#REASON: "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". In this case there are no reliable sources that can prove that these are the best-selling singles of Australia, as certifications are based on shipments (i.e. a single may have recieved Platinum certification which is 70,000 shipments, but in reality may have only sold 20,000 copies). How about providing an actual rationale for voting 'keep', so that your comment has some weight to the discussion in question? Till 15:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename List of singles certified platinum in Australia. That should hopefully satisfy Till's objection. (Platinum vs. quadruple platinum to be less arbitrary.) Clarityfiend (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's better since we're not claiming that the singles have sold a particular amount which is unverifiable (i've said that so many times! Lol). Till 03:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Labels buy singles certifications when singles cross thresholds. Welcome to the Digital Era. · Mcdonalds (talk · cont), at 02:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- According to whom? ARIA says that they certify recordings based on shipments. Till 03:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because ARIA Singles Certifications merge both physical and digital copies though physical represent almost nothing but physical singles still exist and since it's the same certification, ARIA can't clearly say "based on sales". · Mcdonalds (talk · cont), at 15:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Does it say this on the official website? If not, that's WP:OR. Till 03:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss a move (to List of singles certified platinum in Australia, or similar) in the talk page. It seems here what is contested is just the title, not the content. Cavarrone (talk) 02:41, 24 June 2012 (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.