Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Most weeks on UK Singles Chart: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactivelyContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:56, 5 August 2011 editSL93 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers78,890 edits Creating deletion discussion page for Most weeks on UK Singles Chart. (TW)  Latest revision as of 15:16, 2 February 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(16 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''keep'''. The article with which everyone seems to want this merged to is already borderline ]. Adding to that will make this problem worse. Consensus seems to be that information in this article is useful to have around, however, so merging in future is a possibilty. &mdash; ] 23:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

===]=== ===]===
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|M}}


:{{la|Most weeks on UK Singles Chart}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>) :{{la|Most weeks on UK Singles Chart}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>)
:({{Find sources|Most weeks on UK Singles Chart}}) :({{Find sources|Most weeks on UK Singles Chart}})
Prod was removed with the reasoning, "Why has my article been put up for deletion. It is no different from all the other lists to do with British music statistics. I started at 40 weeks as not many uk singles reach this milestone; would it be better to put 52 weeks instead? This is no different from the Biggest selling British acts of all time list starting at 50 million sales, surely this and hundreds of other lists are meaninless then also?" Why 40 weeks? No notable reason is given for why 40 weeks was chosen. Unnecessary list compared to similar better put together lists. ] (]) 18:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC) Prod was removed with the reasoning, "Why has my article been put up for deletion. It is no different from all the other lists to do with British music statistics. I started at 40 weeks as not many uk singles reach this milestone; would it be better to put 52 weeks instead? This is no different from the Biggest selling British acts of all time list starting at 50 million sales, surely this and hundreds of other lists are meaninless then also?" Why 40 weeks? No notable reason is given for why 40 weeks was chosen. Unnecessary list compared to similar better put together lists. ] (]) 18:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't be bothered to leave this on here as this site is obviously bias in what goes on here. As for better put together lists: I've seen some terrible lists on here with incorrect information but this has not been deleted. I shall keep my information that cannot be found anywhere else on the internet as a complete list & all my other information & you can stick your wikipedia right up your pathetic administrative sad lonely lives arses!!! <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

*'''Merge''' into ]. From what I can see, that article has a spot for artists whose combined works have achieved a record number of weeks on the charts, but nothing yet for individual singles that have achieved a record number of weeks on the charts. This seems like a worthy branch of statistics to me; Elvis has had the most weeks on the chart as an artist, but Sinatra's "My Way" according to the info from this article, has the record for most time on the chart, even though it never reached number one. I think that's interesting, and not already covered in the ]. If there is concern about the arbitrary number of 40 weeks on the charts (I personally don't see a problem with it) than the list could be reduced to those singles that achieved 52 weeks on the charts, which would both give a rational for the number - one full year - and which would make the list shorter and more suitable to be merged into ]. The article's creator seems pretty upset about the article's listing here on AfD and has moved the page to ] and blanked the page. I am going to endeavor to move the page back and unblank it so that this discussion will be less confusing to those just joining. I am sorry if you were offended, ], by the consideration for deletion; it is not personal and we very much value your contributions, even if this page does end up being deleted. ] (]) 20:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
**I was surprised at his behavior. Just because this is an AfD does not mean that the article will be deleted for sure. ] (]) 21:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>— ] (]) 02:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)</small>
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>— ] (]) 02:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)</small>
<hr style="width:55%;" />
:<span style="color:#FF4F00;">'''] to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.'''</span><br />
:<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ] (]) 00:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist -->
<hr style="width:55%;" />
*'''Strong Keep''' - seems like a really interesting article and i think this is the type of thing people will look up and expect to be on wikipedia. ] (]) 16:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
** ] ] <sup>]</sup> 01:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' - Sourced, logical, useful list. And we really do need to do something about the "Misplaced Pages is a waste of time submitting anything" effect. Deletionism kills new encyclopedians. ] (]) 02:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' into ]. There don't seem to be individual articles for lists like this, but this is valuable information which I'm surprised isn't already somewhere else. If this is to be kept in the current article, I think we need to think of a better title for it. I also agree with Carrite about not pushing away new editors. ] (]) 18:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' the title definitely needs changing. also the OCC publishes 'weeks on chart' in it's archives so this article could definitely be better and more reliably sourced. ] (]) 22:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' as it doesn't seem like it deserve a standalone article, yet this type of information is usually convered in standard music articles. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 15:16, 2 February 2022

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. The article with which everyone seems to want this merged to is already borderline indiscriminate. Adding to that will make this problem worse. Consensus seems to be that information in this article is useful to have around, however, so merging in future is a possibilty. — Joseph Fox 23:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Most weeks on UK Singles Chart

Most weeks on UK Singles Chart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod was removed with the reasoning, "Why has my article been put up for deletion. It is no different from all the other lists to do with British music statistics. I started at 40 weeks as not many uk singles reach this milestone; would it be better to put 52 weeks instead? This is no different from the Biggest selling British acts of all time list starting at 50 million sales, surely this and hundreds of other lists are meaninless then also?" Why 40 weeks? No notable reason is given for why 40 weeks was chosen. Unnecessary list compared to similar better put together lists. Joe Chill (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't be bothered to leave this on here as this site is obviously bias in what goes on here. As for better put together lists: I've seen some terrible lists on here with incorrect information but this has not been deleted. I shall keep my information that cannot be found anywhere else on the internet as a complete list & all my other information & you can stick your wikipedia right up your pathetic administrative sad lonely lives arses!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikingman69 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Merge into UK Singles Chart records and statistics. From what I can see, that article has a spot for artists whose combined works have achieved a record number of weeks on the charts, but nothing yet for individual singles that have achieved a record number of weeks on the charts. This seems like a worthy branch of statistics to me; Elvis has had the most weeks on the chart as an artist, but Sinatra's "My Way" according to the info from this article, has the record for most time on the chart, even though it never reached number one. I think that's interesting, and not already covered in the UK Singles Chart records and statistics. If there is concern about the arbitrary number of 40 weeks on the charts (I personally don't see a problem with it) than the list could be reduced to those singles that achieved 52 weeks on the charts, which would both give a rational for the number - one full year - and which would make the list shorter and more suitable to be merged into UK Singles Chart records and statistics. The article's creator seems pretty upset about the article's listing here on AfD and has moved the page to Misplaced Pages is a waste of time submitting anything and blanked the page. I am going to endeavor to move the page back and unblank it so that this discussion will be less confusing to those just joining. I am sorry if you were offended, Vikingman69, by the consideration for deletion; it is not personal and we very much value your contributions, even if this page does end up being deleted. Rising*From*Ashes (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
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) 00:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
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.