Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Billboard Top Country & Western Records of 1951

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. Missvain (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Top Country & Western Records of 1951[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not a list of number-one country songs, just the top songs or artists from the year each ripped directly from a single issue of Billboard. This topic is not discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Fails WP:NLIST. The number-one country song of each year is covered in List of Billboard Year-End number-one singles and albums. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is core encyclopedic content. For the past 70 years, Billboard had issued year-end charts of each year's records in the pop, R&B, and country genres. We have built out the full set of such lists for pop music (see, e.g., Billboard year-end top 30 singles of 1950, Billboard year-end top 30 singles of 1951). I have now begun the process of building out the parallel lists for the country genre. These are extremely valuable lists. Cbl62 (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination appears to be a pointy response to my reverting the nominator's undiscussed page move. The AfD nomination was made three hours after the article was created and 13 minutes after I reverted the nominator's page move. I try to assume good faith, but it's challenging in this case. Cbl62 (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had already tagged the article for notability concerns. Issues with the name as well as the list are independent of each other, but both should be dealt with in case consensus is to keep. It is not encyclopedic to copy and paste the top lists from every Billboard year-end issue and Wikipedia should not be doing so. Should we have lists for each year's top rock songs, top R&B songs, top jazz songs, top streaming songs? Albums, artists, producers? There should be historical relevance/significance shown with coverage in independent reliable sources available to do so. It is well enough to note within the articles of the songs from these lists where it placed on the year-end charts, not republish Billboard's year-end issue in its entirety. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard is the authoritative source for year-end rankings of historic songs from the 1940s and 1950s. As noted above, we have an identical series of articles on pop records which reflect Billboard's year-end charts. See Billboard year-end top 30 singles of 1950, Billboard year-end top 30 singles of 1951, et al. Those have existed for years without anyone making claims of the type now asserted by the nom. How is it that this has never been a problem for the pop chart but it is now an issue when analogous lists are created for the country chart? Cbl62 (talk) 01:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the nominator's slippery slope argument is misplaced. During the 1940s and 1950s, Billboard published three types of charts: Pop, Country, and R&B. Each of these are enormously important in assessing and studying the history, development, and growth of American music during these critical decades. Nobody is suggesting that we create lists for other year-end lists published by bloggers or lesser publications. Further, the Billboards lists are not subjective, opinion-based "best of" lists. They reflect objective and official hard data on record sales and juke box plays. Cbl62 (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard is a primary and only source here, and I never mentioned lists from bloggers or lesser publications. Other independent reliable sources do not discuss these lists in any detail. Just because something else exists, doesn't mean it should and doesn't mean the scope should be further broadened. Are we just going to republish the entirety of Billboard's year-end issues now? That's where this will lead. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard is indeed the primary source (it's their list after all), but it's not the only source. I've already added two other sources. As 1951 is in the pre-Interent age, sources are difficult to uncover, and an AfD three hours after creation is really a bit much. Nobody is remotely suggesting republishing entire issues of Billboard. That is simply an argument ab absurdum. Cbl62 (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this survives, I don't see why others wouldn't be allowed to create lists from every year-end chart published from, for example, the 1979 year-end issue of Billboard. There are top lists for pop singles and albums, country singles and albums, soul singles and albums, disco hits, adult contemporary, Latin albums, classical albums, and jazz albums. I mean it's all history from the authoritative source that should be duplicated here for encyclopedic preservation. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be judged on its own merits, not based on speculation that it might encourage someone to create an article on the best selling disco or Latin records of 1979. This is sort of a reverse OSE argument. (We already have the 1979 pop singles list BTW: Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 1979.) Cbl62 (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note on article development. The article is not simply a list "ripped" from an issue of Billboard. The article at this point, several hours after its creation, includes substantial content above and beyond the list published by Billboard. Moreover, the sourcing far exceeds that found in any of the other year-end Billboard chart articles. Compare Billboard Top Country & Western Records of 1951 and Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 1978. Cbl62 (talk) 08:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a lot of puffery to me to make it look more substantial than it is. What does other people's lists from the year or noting a Time-Life release from 1991 that happens to contain some of these songs have to do with anything? It looks like you would be better off expanding the 1951 in country music article since the Billboard year-end list is not something discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources as required per WP:NLIST. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you're so determined to exorcise this article, but the article actually does now include independent sourcing discussing the group. E.g., this. Similar coverage of this type is likely available in multiple newspapers, but is hard to uncover in the pre-Internet era. Cbl62 (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mostly per Cbl62. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historic article. Passes WP:GNG. Tessaracter (talk) 05:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62. Charting helps establish notability for recordings so it would seem to be a valid index, and these also help document what was popular in American music for these years. The nom says, "I don't see why others wouldn't be allowed to create lists from every year-end chart published..." Yeah, why not? I can't remotely see why that would be a terrifying prospect, but to each their own. postdlf (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2020 (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.