Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one albums in Australia during the 1970s

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. No consensus to delete. Malinaccier (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one albums in Australia during the 1970s[edit]

This page, along with these related articles:

are being nominated for the same reasons as this page. Each individual year listed on all of these pages now has their own separate article. However, during the deletion discussion of the 1960s page, the idea of merging the list or each separate article was brought up, this may be a better option. Classicrockfan42 (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-For the same reason as the other list. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 16:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does this need an AfD? Seems like a routine editorial merge/split decision. Since the other AfD looks uncontroversial, they could have just been {{prod}}ed first to see if anyone objects. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Later comment: I see below that it does indeed need discussion. (Characterizing it as original work may not help the argument being made.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Bduke (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I find it useful on a single page. I can do a browser text search through the whole decade. It's also useful to visually scan down the lot. Is it necessary to delete it just because there's another article on a particular year? Is there a rule that stops both being retained?--Lester 05:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Objection to the removal of this list by Rusty201

Although the way that classicrockfan42 has now configured the list year by year is good and has obviously been a lot of work for him, as the creator of the original list, I object to the removal of this page on a number of grounds:

please bare with me if I repeat myself, but I am passionate to defend my original work, which took a long time to complete.

1) I would like an online resource that shows how long each album spent at number one. This new version does not show this. In the way it has been split up now, classicrockfan42 has failed to include the number of weeks that each album spent at number one. For one, I use this information in research for a radio show I produce, which is one of the reasons I put this list on the internet originally. It will take a lot of work to reinclude this information in the new chart format that classicrockfan42 has produced, and if he does not wish to include this, you couuld perhaps argue that in effect vandalised my original work (if the original is removed) has been vandalised, and turned it into a lesser quality product with the omission of weeks spent at No 1. I do not wish to spend several hours putting this info back in to his newly created product (which in turn may also make him very angry), because someone decided to take a knife to my original work. If you look at the way that the British chart entries are done, they show the entire decade at a glance List_of_number-one_albums_(UK) (although admittedly this is an external site.

Currently, if you wish to quote how many weeks an album was at number one, you have to count it manually, as this info is missing. You may also get an incorrect number due to the reasons given in point 1. Albums at number one also sometimes follow a haphazard pattern of the distribution of weeks at the top. You'll find an example of this during 1971/2/3 with such albums as COCKER HAPPY, SLADE ALIVE! and TEASER AND THE FIRECAT. They do not spend a certain amount of weeks at number one in a solid block. If the number of weeks at #1 are given in a decade wide spread with numbers of weeks at #1 next to each seperate entry, then a more accurate picture is achieved.

2) The new format, which it appears has only been done to make it the same formatting as similar USA entries, makes it more difficult to have a larger overview of the chart situation. For example, if an album was number one during more than one year, you don't get a feel for how long it was at the top (EG. Neil Diamond'S HOT AUGUST NIGHT was number one for 29 weeks at various times right throughout 1973 & 1974. Splitting the list up into years only will give the reader a false impression about the longevity of certain albums in some cases. it is not always easy to count up on each page how many weeks an album spent at #1, as it may have been spread out over a 2 year period at number one. This is especially so for albums at number one over the Xmas period. This is where a decade list is much more useful in tracking the performance of an album at the number one position. eg 1971-1972 TEASER AND THE FIRECAT by cat Stevens spent 15 weeks at No 1, over the Christmas period. You don't get this picture in the way it has been newly formatted, you only get the view of 1971 or 1972. The new way it has been formatted gives no provision to show that it also charted at No 1 in the following or previous year. If you wish to look at the popularity of an artist, such as THE BEATLES for the 1960s, or ABBA, ROD STEWART, ELTON JOHN, say for the 1970s, it is much easier to do so with the decade format with an overview rather than scrolling through various pages for each year of a decade to get an overview.

3) I see no reason why my version and the version created by classicrockfan42 cannot exist side by side. I would strongly object to the removal of the page I originally created, as it took several weeks of solid work to put it together, as an online resource. Perhaps classicrockfan42 would like to add more of his own original work to the list he created, or change it altogether, so it is more his own original work. He has in effect taken my original work, rearranged it & wikipedia is now calling for the eradication of my original, as Classicrockfan42 may not have liked the way I formatted the information stylistically. I personally think the American formatting lacks, because of the omission of weeks at number one. (Must all information be standardised to an American style? The Brits haven't done it) I think Classicrockfan42 could be rewarded for his work somehow by leaving it there side by side, but he needs to add something more to it to make it more of his own original work.

4)I WAS NOT CONTACTED by classicrockfan42 before he split up my original work up and a request was put in to wikipedia to remove my original work. I personally am not happy that it be changed to the inferior American formatting. Rusty201 (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1960s is now gone

The 1960s albums list has now dissapeared without any possibility to have put in my opinion on its removal. My vote could have saved it. Will my singles lists now suffer the same fate?

Rusty201 (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

links will no longer be valid

I have put some links in various articles linking weeks spent at number one to the decade lists. See links for the original text and links to album & singles lists.

Eg. Sherbet's_Greatest_Hits

"Sherbet's Greatest Hits (1970-1975) was a compilation album released on Infinity Records in Australia in 1975, at the time of the height of Sherbet's popularity in Australia. It spent 1 week at the top of the Australian album chart in 1975. It was Sherbet's first number one album in Australia and covered their single releases 1970-1975."

My_Little_Angel_(William_Shakespeare_song) "It was Shakespeare's second big hit in Australia and his first number one, making the number 1 spot in Australia for 3 weeks in early 1975."

or: Living_in_the_Seventies "Two singles were lifted from the album: "Living in the 70s"/"You're a Broken Gin Bottle, Baby" and "Horror Movie"/"Carlton (Lygon Street Blues)", the latter spending 2 weeks at the top of the Australian singles chart in 1975. "

The last two assume that someone is going to tamper with the singles lists as well.

Rusty201 (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Rusty201, the 1960s list was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one albums in Australia during the 1960s and you were notified on your user page of the discussions by Classicrockfan42 here, here and here. Moondyne 00:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, basically per Lester. I believe that it is useful to have the whole decade on a single page. I see no harm in this. Moondyne 00:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while this is a basic list it should be part of a greater complimentary work like List of number-one albums (UK) that work would also utilise the year by year list. IMHO these lists could be reduced to album|artist|date entered charts(release date)|1st date @ #1| last date week at @ 1 | number of weeks #1|number of weeks in the charts|, rather than the weekly format With each section having a yearly summary noting any sales/time records with see also link to the full yearly for the week by week The use of "best of decade" type recordings is common and its readily conceivable that the readers will be more inclined to look to a decade article to get an over view rather than trawling through yearly articles. Gnan garra 00:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a choice between being broken up into years and keeping it as a decade list (if the 2 cannot co-exist side by side) I still prefer the decade option as it's less messy to wade through. Rusty201 (talk) 05:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Granted I received notification of intention to delete the pages, however, I knew nothing of the fact that a different version of the work (with weeks at #1 missing) was being done before I got these AfD messages. When I did my lists, I contacted the person whose list I updated for approval, whose approval I got. Rusty201 (talk) 05:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm bewildered by moves to delete this valuable resource for what seem to be pedantic reasons. Users here are telling you it's a useful resource as it is, so why tamper with it? Lyn50 (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per points from Lester and Moondyne, but also taking note of Gnangarra's suggestion that would alleviate one issue that I had with the space and format Satu Suro 11:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - does not satisfy any of the reasons for deletion in WP:DEL#REASON. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is encyclopedic, and the appropriateness of duplication and/or splitting of article material is a content question most appropriately discussed on the article page (or possibly the relevant project page). For what it's worth, I would certainly support recreation of the 1960s article, and I would strongly suggest to the main editor of that article that he/she request the deleting admin email copy of that text for editing and likely recreation in the future. Note that deletion is not necessarily final, as consensus can change. Debate 木 14:20, 2 September 2008 (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.