Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2004 (2nd nomination)

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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2004[edit]

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

Also including the following similar lists:

I would think this falls under WP:IINFO, when a mere summary of the hits of each year can in some cases be found at 2004 in music and the like and should be sufficient. It's just a regurgitation of info from numerous issues of Billboard that is nearly impossible to adequately source (the date the song entered the top 10, the date it peaked, the chart position it peaked at, the number of weeks it was in the top 10, whether it re-entered the top 10 and whether it carried over from one year to the next). All that just to inform readers these songs reached the top on the Hot 100. Perhaps merge just the song titles/artist names to "[year] in music" or "[year] in American music" articles, as appropriate, if not already set up that way (sourcing would be easier too). There are already lists of #1s, and this is somewhat of arbitrary cutoff (top 20, top 40 anyone?). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 21. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to definitely say to keep these as someone who spends a large amount of time researching music charts and debating them. These articles give a lot of useful information in a way that's concise and easy to find. All deleting them will accomplish is making that information harder to find. Not only that, but I also just find this information interesting. And no, anyone in the music industry can tell you that number 10 isn't an arbitrary cutoff at all. Having a single reach the top ten is a massive milestone for an artist and the top ten of the chart is important because it gets songs coverage in Billboard and other magazines - the position is important because the media surrounding it has made it that way. Deleting these articles is just going to make everyone's life a lot more difficult. And frankly, I'd rather there be a lot of correct information without good citations than nothing at all (I'll also say that I've fact-checked the majority of these and they're right). politoed89/austin 05:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These provide information on a notable topic, viz the Billboard charts, as well as links which are useful for navigation. I'd oppose a merge to the year in music article on the basis that these tend to already be quite large. We can argue whether it's better to have top 10, top 20, or top 40, but top ten is a notable concept, and debates about content aren't reason for deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list provides some very good information about some of the popular songs that came throughout the year. I know for a fact that a lot of people use this list to refer and listen to new songs because I am one of them. So I definitely strongly oppose the decision to delete it.

NiR_insanity 15:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Colapeninsula. These lists are verifiable and provide clear navigational and organizational value, with little downside.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I see the above users utilizing mostly ILIKEIT rationales that I don't find very convincing. Frankly, I understand the nominator's concern over IINFO. My basis for keep is only based on the fact that pretty much all of the songs in these lists are notable (if not all), and lists have a good claim for staying if all the content can be verified as notable, I would think. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not use an ILIKEIT argument. My arguments are policy-based: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Navigation, notability (the media regularly reports artists' chart positions), article size against merging. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair—like I said, notability of these songs in particular makes them stronger candidates for keep. But most of the arguments here seem to be of the ILIKEIT variety (it's useful, I spent lots of time on it, it doesn't hurt anybody), IMHO. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course top 10 positions can be verified (so can top 11, top 20, top 40, top 100), but rarely are these sources found outside of Billboard itself (note the sources in the later lists). If these are to be kept they should show one thing: were they a top ten hit or not? "Weeks in top 10" cannot be sourced adequately (quite impossible actually), date reached peak - verifiable but meaningless. Then all the continuations from previous and subsequent years. What reached the top 10 during a given year, which is what 2013 in music and the like do a much better job of. I agree that there is way too much WP:ILIKEIT in these arguments. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I love these articles, shame some people want to delete them. Really? They're important to chartsters, but the thing is there's a weird void between 1960 and 1994 that nobody has bothered to fill in, incorrect peak dates, and the rowspan on dates only appears on the 2010-present articles. This is pretty useful to me, to find new top-ten updates every week, but the thing is that there is just no style. TheBatteryMill (talk) 01:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)— TheBatteryMill (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Please keep them. They can be verified for each one dating back to the 50's. For example type in, http://www.billboard.com/charts/2001-03-24/hot-100 to verify the top-tens. It's simple. PLEASE don't delete and also add the top-tens for all of the years. It's easy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.12.152.67 (talk) 02:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I'd like to go through in the coming weeks and complete these lists; I plan to get started tomorrow morning on verifying 1958 to 1960. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 00:55, 25 November 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.