Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one new age albums of 2010 (U.S.)

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one new age albums of 2010 (U.S.)[edit]

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

This is simply a reprint of the Billboard list, no potential for real encyclopedic content, may have some copyright issues, and is exactly why wikipedia is not an almanac. Shadowjams (talk) 08:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't matter since Enya's album was #1 for all but 3 weeks of this year anyway. Also, the chart in question is incredibly niche and unlikely to have its own article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this chart is incredibly niche, but so is the Dance/Electronic albums chart, yet that has been permitted. So, what is the difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by D bovair1988 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF as to why that argument fails. Hasteur (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2010 (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) 00:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator Shadowjams states that "Wikipedia is not an almanac" and links to a policy that doesn't mention almanacs. On the other hand, the first of our fundamental principles, described in WP:FIVEPILLARS says "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." (Emphasis added). It would be more correct to say that Wikipedia is, at least in part an almanac, as well as an encyclopedia and a gazetteer. I take no position on this specific article, but Shadowjams' argument here is somewhat flawed. Cullen328 (talk) 06:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Cullen here. While I disagree with most of what the nomination says, I have really serious issues with our right here in copyright law. This is little more than cut-and-paste with citations, to avoid actual plagiarism. Bearian (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2010 (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.