- List of Gaon Digital Chart number ones of 2017 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I don't believe the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Gaon Digital Chart number ones of 2017 properly weighed the arguments presented at the discussion. I also believe the lack of English-language sources led to delete arguments to begin with. I contacted the closing adminstrator Black Kite, but was not given a response. The nominator argued that the list violated WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:IINFO. However, it has been well established these articles listing number-one songs are entirely tangible topics (cf. List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2011, a featured list). Those in favor of keeping the article pointed to this. The biggest fault in the delete arguments is they were horribly systematically biased; they expect English-language sources for a South Korean music chart. Gaon writes monthly reports of its charts (the equivalent to Billboard magazine's weekly articles): January, February, March. Third-party sources also discuss the weekly Gaon Digital Chart: since its inception (Newsen) and ever since (the following are for January 2017): imaeil.com, 10asia, News1, and so on. The sources exist, simply not in the language easily accessible to most readers and editors. ℯxplicit 06:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the argument that this was just a collection of data/a replica of the website has been overcome. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way is this "just a collection of data"? I can't find that passage neither in WP:NOTMIRROR nor in WP:IINFO. Why does this argument – if it is a valid deletion argument – apply to South Korea but not to other countries? Why to this number one list but not to other data collections like sports results, filmographies, and other lists? -- HvW (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Stifle: There are third-party references available that can allow one to write an article similar to that of List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2011, and I linked a few examples to in my original post. So how is this article any different from the Billboard one? Is this anything beyond the "fuck you" attitude towards non-English non-Eurocentric topics, or can the community just be blunt and confirm that's where this stems from? ℯxplicit 00:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @HvW: WP:NOTEVERYTHING, of which WP:IINFO is part, states that "The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive".
@Explicit: The existence of other similar articles which have not been deleted may indicate that the required action is deleting the other articles rather than restoring those which have.
@both: I haven't used the above as a basis for an endorse, because what we properly should be looking at here is whether the deletion process has properly been followed. I'll get back to you on that. Stifle (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the article failed to provide any independent authoritative references despite numerous comments that such was required. Nothing showed that the particular chart enjoys any notability.--Rpclod (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously Gaon Music Chart enjoys that notability. It's an official national chart and it is regularly used in the articles of K-pop artists. And K-pop is not just a local phenomenon. The market is number 8 in the world. And what "authoritative references" do you expect? The list is about number one hits of South Korea. You've got to proof that a certain song was number one at a certain date. And of course Gaon is the primary source for this. The featured List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2011 only provides references to billboard.com. So what do you expect here? Especially if Korean language links won't be very helpful for English readers. -- HvW (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What I don't understand about this deletion decision is consistency. You can say number one lists are notable or they are not. But you can not say, this particular list from South Korea is not notable and all the others are. You can not say this particular one is NOMIRROR but others of the same making are okay. You can not say I want very explicit references in Korean and allow charts of doubtful sources like Brazil or Romania. Of course you don't have to start a mass deletion, you may start with just one article. But I don't see that anyone wants to get rid of all likewise lists. And the whole discussion avoids dealing with anything but South Korea ignoring that everything applies to all the other countries as well. -- HvW (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you, if they applied the rules of South Korea, they should also do it for Japan (Oricon), USA (Billboard), etc. There were discussion about moving it to List of South Korean number ones of 20**, since many doesn't know what Gaon refers to (despite that the description above pages explains it). Also the same with the number one streaming songs, all the pages were deleted, but you still can see pages like List of number-one Billboard Streaming Songs of 2017 & List of number-one streaming tracks of 2017 (Australia) despite being also a collection of data and from one source only (Billboard + ARIA). They just applied the rules for one country and left the others.GD.BB (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- My !vote on the original deletion discussion was Move to a title which wasn't specific to a single corporation. I didn't notice that the list was deleted in February. I still stand by my reasoning in the original AfD. Icebob99 (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Referencing chart positions in articles for the artist, album, or song is perfectly acceptable and not in question here. Nobody is disputing the notability of the Gaon Digital Chart here either. It's specifically about the lists of number ones for this chart. Are there 3rd party sources that regularly report on the number ones on this chart or books about all the songs that reached number one or discuss the chart toppers in some fashion that would make lists such as these notable? There are notability requirements for stand alone lists. The sourcing in lists for the Hot 100 and UK Singles charts may not be adequate, but I know these things exist for those charts. Sure, this is not so for the majority of #1 song & album lists (List of Billboard Rhythmic number-one songs of the 2010s, List of number-one Billboard Alternative Albums of 2017, and the streaming charts stated above to name a few) but that's an other stuff exists argument and has no bearing on the merits of this list. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we had that discussion in de: and our decision was: number one lists of all official national charts are notable, genre charts (alternative, country, dance) are not. We did not look for sources, we just assumed that they talk about the number ones of the official charts in all countries like they do in the USA, UK, or Germany. That is what I meant with consistency. And I would think the same rule applies in en: even if this was never stated explicitly. That is why they were created in the first place. It's a bit tricky but it's not about "other stuff exists". It's about a general rule that those list are notable 1) if there are sources dealing with those number ones or 2) if they are about official charts. And you can't apply rule 1 to South Korea and rule 2 to all other charts. So it's rather the other way round: if you decide against South Korea it is a general decision against all other countries for which no additional proof is given. But the decision was not of that kind. But this is just a theoretical aspect why I think the deletion decision was faulty. If we talk about South Korea and notability of chart positions I suggest this Google search: "gaon chart number one -wikipedia". In my opinion this is enough to show that Gaon charts are notable for the media. And mind: those are just the English language results for Korean charts and local chart acts. -- HvW (talk) 01:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- But if they only source is the chart publication itself, then a list of number twos and number threes and so on would be just as notable. The criteria has to meet WP:STANDALONE. In reliable 3rd-party sources, are the numbers ones on these charts discussed (not necessarily in chart recaps by trade magazines but just general reporting)? --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and I provided a few examples in my post. For more recent examples, there is a wave of articles due to IU's recent success on the Gaon Digital Chart. For example, this article talks about how the lead single and all of her album tracks charted in the top 20, and how she was able to do so with only two tracking days. There's this article from a few days ago, which mentions IU's continued success in spite of competition, particularly Hyukoh and Suran. So yes, this chart receives continual, non-trivial reporting from third-party references that would allow for a clear, notable, and distinct list to be written. ℯxplicit 00:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the enter.etoday.co.kr article also states that the lead single from the album reached the #1 spot on various charts and describes this as a meaningful achievement. That would be the key point in this particular discussion. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 00:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- So that we know what to look for, can you provide some examples that show say BBC chart or Billboard 100 number 1 songs deserve a list? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 04:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As most of the delete !votes in the AFD were grounded on a shortage of reliable sources and these have now been advanced above, I suggest a relist at AFD to give the community a fresh opportunity to consider those sources. The closing admin's decision was correct and unavoidable on the basis of what had happened at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There's only one source so far, but I think we can find more, give us a few days maybe. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 04:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are some articles from Korea Music Content Industry Association, they give weekly news about No.1 songs of the week/month: Week 17 & April. Also OSEN, one of Korea biggest news site always reports No.1, some news: here & here. All of them in Korean language of course, since the chart is about Korea, so it doesn't make since to have many news about it in English. GD.BB (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|
