Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of singles by Australian artists that reached number one on the UK Singles Chart

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. I have had to read the arguments individually and carefully, and those without policy-based arguments are truly unhelpful on this one, and unfortunately easily discounted. One also has to include "REALITY". While the topic of Australian influence on UK music might be a good idea, this list does ot address that, nor is it useful nor indivcative of anything. It's therefore WP:LISTCRUFT, and unusable/unworkable. The consensus of the policy-based arguments is delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of singles by Australian artists that reached number one on the UK Singles Chart[edit]

List of singles by Australian artists that reached number one on the UK Singles Chart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think this list is bordering on WP:LISTCRUFT. There's no indication of why it is notable and/or relevant. Till I Go Home (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't grounds for deletion. Lists of number one singles are notable because number one singles are notable, and classifying things by nationality is exceedingly common (Wikipedia has numerous categories for musical acts, etc, by nationality). My argument was not "other stuff exists", it was that this data is stored in lists indexed in other ways, and indexing it by nationality is beneficial. This is entirely in accordance with WP:L, which recommends using lists to classify and sub-categorize items. You also state it "borders on listcruft", which suggests to me that you don't think it actually is listcruft, and the individual entries are notable by the music notability guidelines, so your only argument seems to be that classifying singles by nationality isn't useful. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really... It doesn't seem apparent to me that anything in my rationale for deletion was in relation to WP:ILIKEIT. Also your statements; "My argument was not "other stuff exists" and "Wikipedia has numerous categories for musical acts, etc, by nationality" are contradicting each other, by far. Till I Go Home talk edits 14:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't imagine anyone is going to explicitly look for these search terms - it's far too narrow a set of criteria. --Ritchie333 (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, interesting, but I believe it's over-listification really. Ideally the nationality information would be included on a master list of all #1 UK singles. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
That's impossible because the list is too long to put in a sortable table with nationality one of the sorting criteria. Having a separate list is the best alternative. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Australian artists have had a long impact in British chart music. Please read WP:BEFORE next time. Lugnuts (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find it offensive how somebody would ask someone else to to read up about deletion when they have been doing it for a whole year. How about next time you address the issue being presented, and not the editor in question. Kthanksbye. Till I Go Home talk edits 14:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Further, your vote appears to have absolutely no significance in relation to the discussion in question — what does "Australians having a long impact in British impact in chart music" have anything to do with the fact that this is a trivial list? Till I Go Home talk edits 14:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wont insult your itelligence by explaining it to you, as you might find it "offensive". Lugnuts (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Honestly, the WP:BEFORE handwaving is getting rather tiring and it borders on being considered an insult, much the same as as "learn to read or RTFM is. Your vague hand-wave at "its notable cause I say so" doesn't help matters any either. Something that backs up the assertion that Australian singers are especially notable in the UK might help for starters. Tarc (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:NLIST, WP:Source list and WP:NNC requirements. Every item of the list is notable. The belonging of every item to this list is easily verifiable. WP:LISTCRUFT is just an essay, not a policy nor a guideline, and that said no one has argumented in what this list is bordering on WP:LISTCRUFT. Cavarrone (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Every item of the list is notable" - doesn't matter. Notability is not inherited. Just because individual entries are notable, it does not mean the list is. Also, just because something is an essay, it does not mean the content in it is without merit. Can you justify why exactly the list meets the criteria you specified above - as it still sounds like "it's notable because I say so". PS: Some might disagree that the Bee Gees are Australian given they weren't born there and have spent more time living in the UK and the US. --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability of the items does count, per the guidelines I cited above. This is not the place for teaching you our lists-related guidelines (you should know them before coming here and vote). Read them, so you could provide a more solid, policy-based argument for deletion, other than "I can't imagine anyone is going to explicitly look for these search terms". Someone's imagination is not a strong argument for deletion. Cavarrone (talk) 12:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But you ignored the rest of their rationale, which says "...it's far too narrow a set of criteria". Till I Go Home talk edits 12:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you explain why why it follows the rules of notability? Don't just point to policy and say "because I said so" ( hayyyyya I point my shadowless fists of death at you) - give me some simple and easy to understand arguments why the page should stay. If you can't do that without hiding behind bureaucracy and procedures, it's probably a good indication there might be merit in the opposing point of view. I'll repeat my counter arguments :
1) The page is unlikely to be something linked by many articles or typed in via a google search. Where might you link the page from? I might look for individual entries in the list, but I would never think of looking for this specific list. Aside from a brief Neighbours / SAW period circa 1988, I don't recall a notable trend of Australian artists reaching the top of the charts in the UK.
2) The content is highly subjective - do the Bee Gees count? Does Frank Ifield - also born in the UK, representing that county in the Eurovision Song Contest, and having most of his hitmaking career there. What do the subjects of the articles consider their nationality to be? --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My replies: 1) No one of our guidelines says anything about Google searches or WP searches. Orphan articles are allowed, and anyway here we are talking about one that is linked by many other articles [1] and that last month was visited about 300 times [2]. 2)No, nationality is not something subjective, except for some specific cases... the relevance to this list of Bee Gees is explained in the notes, but that said you are free to remove it from the list. This is a typical surmountable problem.Cavarrone (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, who says the Bee Gees are British, Australian and American? You? Themselves? Passport Control? None of that really addresses Tarc's point though : "Something that backs up the assertion that Australian singers are especially notable in the UK might help for starters.". Why are Australian singers especially notable in the UK? --Ritchie333 (talk) 15:01, 6 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_singles_by_Australian_artists_that_reached_number_one_on_the_UK_Singles_Chart&oldid=1146530597"