Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top 2000

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 per WP:SNOW. Two positions and both sides state 'certainly notable'. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 09:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Top 2000[edit]

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

Huge list article that relates to a Dutch radio show. Whilst in the Netherlands, this is certainly notable, and a Dutch Wikipedia article would be expected, the show and the list are not notable in the English-speaking world and I do not think there is any need for the article in English Wikipedia. Bazonka (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep: Whether or not something is notable to the English speaking world is irrelevant when it comes to Wikipedia. If something passes notability guidelines in the English Wikipedia but is only notable in the Netherlands, then it merits an article in Wikipedia. That said, the article does need a lot of work. But in and of itself, we don't delete articles simply because it isn't popular in English speaking countries.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Keep article, but delete 500 kB table and any other unreferenced materials in such article per Talk:Top 2000. As Tokyogirl79 said, "Whether or not something is notable to the English speaking world is irrelevant when it comes to Wikipedia".--Jax 0677 (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Where is it stated that something that is not notable in the English-speaking world should have its own English Wikipedia article? WP:WHYN states "Editors apply notability standards to all subjects to determine whether the English language Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article on that subject". In this case, the only people who are likely to find this article useful are the Dutch, and they already have their own language's Wikipedia article. It's not as though speakers of other languages would be referring to this English Wikipedia article as a lingua franca reference, because they wouldn't be interested in the subject matter either. Bazonka (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - IF the article meets WP:GNG, then the properly referenced parts of the article likely should be kept to the extent that they conform with policy. WP:Obscure says "Obscure topics are perfectly welcome to have articles on Wikipedia, provided that notability guidelines are met".--Jax 0677 (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much this and with the added argument that if we were to only cover things that were mentioned in English language sources, we'd be doing a huge disservice to the Wikipedia reading public. If something passes notability guidelines then it should be included. That's the basis of Wikipedia in a nutshell. Saying that we should only keep stuff that is in English would get rid of at least a third of the articles here on Wikipedia that clearly pass notability guidelines. It's also fairly common for articles to be brought over from another language's Wikipedia with the idea of expanding the knowledge of things that aren't English-language centered. There's something fundamentally wrong with saying that we shouldn't include something just because it hasn't been covered in English language sources, despite it potentially being notable and receiving a lot of coverage in another language. It's not really this page I'm arguing to keep as much as against the idea that the only things of worth to the English language Wikipedia are things that are covered in English.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When did I say that we should "only cover things that were mentioned in English language sources"? I don't think I ever said that at all. Notability differs from place to place. English Wikipedia is special because it is used by people all over the world and is in effect the international Wikipedia, and so things that are notable in more than one place (even if none of those places are native English speaking) can warrant inclusion, whaterver the language of the source. However, my point (which you seem to have missed) is that the Top 2000 is not notable in any place except the Netherlands, and so it does not need to have an English language article. Who would ever look at it? Dutch people don't need to (they have their own Dutch article), and it is not of notability/interest to anyone else. Bazonka (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you? That's sort of the whole thrust of your argument, though, because under your rationale notability outside of the Netherlands would mean that it's been covered in a source in English. If it was covered in a language other than Dutch, would you argue that it's only notable in Europe? I just think that it's a little narrow minded to assume that this is only interesting to people in the Netherlands. There are a lot of subjects out there that have never been covered in any language or by any country other than the one it originated in (thus under your argument, only notable within its own country), yet are viewed quite often by people outside of that country. Last month the Top 2000 article got 2559 views. As of May 2012, the article received over 6,000 views. That's not including the views since the article has been added. My point is that despite the Top 2000 being a Dutch thing, people are clearly getting to this article and viewing it. We shouldn't be so quick to assume that it's only notable in the Netherlands just because it's never been exported to any English speaking country and hasn't received any English coverage. I should also say that we shouldn't assume that it hasn't received any sort of English commentary. I'm also finding where it's been covered in English language sources as well, including a paper in San Antonio. [1], [2] Here's one about a zoo in Australia that uses the countdown to soothe giraffes. [3] This news story comments on how this one person's songs are still getting played in this countdown. My point is that between the talk in English in the Internet at large, the news sources, and the amount of hits the article has received, it's fairly clear to say that it isn't limited to just the Netherlands, and even if it wasn't, we shouldn't limit Wikipedia just because it seems like it would only be of interest to a small group. Where do we stop at that point? Do we remove an article on an obscure, yet notable, scientist that specializes in rabbit muscles just because he only received coverage in niche science RS and has zero notability outside of that small niche? The problem with arguing that something that passes notability guidelines but should be removed because it's not widely notable is that at some point we could apply that argument to things at large and ultimately we're not helping anyone by trying to remove things because we assume that it won't be helpful or interesting to people outside of that group. We shouldn't assume that it isn't interesting or useful of a topic just because it's mainly a Netherlands thing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add that I've really only ever seen the phrase you used above used to elaborate on the differences in the notability standards between Wikipedias. The standards of notability on the Japanese Wikipedia are different than on the English one and so on. If something passes notability standards on the English Wikipedia it should be added regardless of what language or country would presumably find it more interesting. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep: Hey there Bazonka, thanks for informing me about this matter. I'm the editor that originally translated this article from the Dutch version. First things first: I think the article should be kept but the 500 kB table should be removed. I am aware that the English wikipedia does not offer much about Dutch radio, and that makes this article seem out of place. However, I feel the article is notable because the Top 2000 is by itself an unusual event, and it is both voted on and listened to by a huge percentage of the entire Dutch population. I searched a bit for numbers and | this news article shows how many people listened to the 2011 version (keep in mind that the Netherlands has a population of almost 17 million). In fact, I think the article has actually gained in relevance since I first created it because more and more events have been created over the years that are connected to it. For example, a few years after the Top 2000 started, they added a tv-show accompanying it, which has also become very popular. This tv-show is in fact so popular that they doubled the episodes from once per day to two per day for this year. They added concerts specifically based around the 'top 2000' theme. Other radio shows have created their own, smaller 'top' versions that emulate the top 2000. They moved the studios from where they broadcast it to a 'museum', and they built a large café/gathering room around it so that people can visit the studios while the top 2000 is running - and waiting lines immediately formed when this café was opened, its so popular. The Top 2000 is rapidly becoming Dutch cultural heritage. Now, I have not kept a close eye on the article since its creation, so I didn't know about the current state until I got your message. I've rambled long enough so I'll keep it short: the 500 kB table was added on 31 december, only a few days ago. This table caused my browser to freeze for almost a minute. I don't think I need to elaborate on the numerous reasons I can think of to remove it. So, keep the article, but remove the table. Omegastar (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clear keep, we are an international encyclopedia, and there is nothing in the policies about the "notability for the English-speaking world". We need to provide info on all notable subjects, i.e. on those which are covered in reliable sources, does not matter in what language.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I posted about this in Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard to get some clarity on everything.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - while English sources are preferred, there is no policy or guideline prohibiting non-English sources or deeming an article non-notable when based on such sources. ukexpat (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD has got nothing to do with the language of the sources!!!! Bazonka (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does - the subject is notable based on sources in Dutch so it is an appropriate article for the English Wikipedia.--ukexpat (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think what he's trying to say is that something that originated in one country would not have any interest to anyone outside of that country, which is ultimately a rather faulty viewpoint. Assuming something like that is illogical, as time has shown again and again that such things not only do interest people outside that country, but that they'll purposely seek it out. For example, one of the articles I linked to above was about an Australian giraffe whose keepers played the Top 2000 to him each year. Another example would be the extreme popularity of the Haruhi Suzumiya anime and manga. The whole reason the series got picked up and brought overseas was because of the anime's popularity via fansubs that were created long before it was licensed. If we were to also assume that things produced, recorded, or otherwise created in another country would only be of interest to that country, then there would be no reason for the Top 2000 countdown itself to have any American songs in it. Why should they be interested in American music if that's something that was made in America and under this rationale, is only interesting to Americans? For that matter, why should so many people be interested in the portrait of the Mona Lisa- after all, it's something that was created in another country and would only be of interest to people in Europe. If this makes the AfD rationale seem silly, then that's the point of my argument. Saying that because something occurred in another country that it isn't of interest to people outside of that country is being more than a bit biased. The point of an Encyclopedia of any nature is to include subjects that are notable and worth learning about. That the Netherlands have a Top 2000 countdown that's just as popular as the Dick Clark New Year's Countdown and Casey Casem's Top 40 wrapped together, that's worth learning about. The problem with insisting that the Top 2000 would only be of interest to Dutch people is that ultimately you're saying that English speaking people are only interested in English language items or things that we created. That's incredibly presumptuous to say that you want to remove something based upon the concept that we're only interested in learning about things held in English speaking countries.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are no ratings for the 2012 chart, but the 2011 chart drew 11.2 million listeners via television, radio and the internet (source: [4]). On a population of just under 17 million, that is massive. What country it is from and what language it is in, is irrelevant. 83.80.170.157 (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator seems to have a very strange idea of the purpose of encyclopedia, which is to broaden readers' knowledge rather than to assume that they are only interested in reading about things that they are already familiar with. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We already have a serious problem with systematic bias; deleting sourced content because the topic isn't anglophone would worsen that. The GNG rightly makes no distinction as to language or nationality. This is supposed to be an encyclopædia. bobrayner (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Kingdom of the Netherlands has just over 17 million people, which is roughly the population of the New York metropolitan area. If this topic is notable in this kingdom, stating that this topic should not have an article is almost like saying that an extremely popular radio show in New York City or Los Angeles should not have an article.--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's notable. It's an encyclopedia. We mustn't mix up WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:GNG. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question - WP:SNOW keep anyone?--ukexpat (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2013 (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.