Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of CHUM number-one singles of 1985

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of CHUM number-one singles of 1985[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete. These are number-one singles lists for the local charts on a single local radio station in a single media market. For Canada we do permit the CHUM Charts to be listed up to 1964 — no official national charts existed in that era, but CHUM's local chart did hold special status over all other local Top 40 charts as the de facto national chart. As soon as RPM launched in 1964, however, CHUM no longer had any special status as anything more than a single-station chart of the type we don't compile or maintain for any other single station. We keep lists of this type for national charts, not single-station local ones, so the CHUM Chart is not encyclopedically relevant, and has no special notability claim, anytime after RPM took away its nationalized status. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Two years ago you had obviously a slightly different view. Your reply on "RPM took over by mid 1964,possibly lost notability then." was "nope; the chart's entire history is notable enough for our purposes". You contributed yourself in creating the 1986 list. What happened to change your mind? Giovanni-PSV (talk) 08:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two years? According to the edit history, any contributions I made to the 1986 list were ten years ago rather than just two. And, for the record, 1965 and 1986 are the only two of these lists that existed at all before 2016 — all of the others were created only this year, precisely because the rule changes I'm talking about here took away the rationale for anybody actually creating them until somebody who didn't understand the reasons why they didn't exist misidentified them as "missing" articles rather than ineligible ones.

The reality is that a lot of our rules and standards have changed significantly over the years — in 2006, we were allowed to create and maintain lists for, and ascribe WP:NMUSIC #2 notability to a musician or band on the basis of, any record chart whose content and history it actually remained possible for us to verify. The rule has been tightened up since then, however, as the old standards proved too open to abuse and manipulation, and we are now restricted to IFPI-certified national pop charts that pass WP:CHARTS, and not single-station local ones anymore.

We used to accept a lot of things that we simply don't accept as notable anymore — Wikipedia's rules about what is acceptable content have changed, and even if these lists were once acceptable under the rules that pertained at that time they aren't acceptable under the rules that pertain now. I've even supported the deletion (sometimes even nominating it myself) of stuff I was the actual creator of, which may have been acceptable under our old rules but became unsupportable as the rules tightened up, so the fact that I merely contributed to a page in the past does not mean that I do (or that I have to) unconditionally support it in perpetuity regardless of the rule changes that have taken place around it since then. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was not to offend you; I merely wanted to understand your motivation. Please feel free also to propose List of CHUM number-one singles of 1984 for deletion, created by "somebody" who did it assuming good faith.

As a consequence, 1) the CHUM chart should be listed as a deprecated chart for entries after 1964 and 2) all references to the chart should be removed in every article on this basis. Giovanni-PSV (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat's comment. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 06:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the rationale laid out above. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:34, 24 December 2016 (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.