Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK Best Selling Singles in 2006

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. W.marsh 22:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UK Best Selling Singles in 2006

UK Best Selling Singles in 2006 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

First of all I was tempted to speedy delete per speedy delete criterion a1 ('Little of no context'). However, because the article has been there a while, I thought I'd allow a discussion.

This should go because:

• Its an indiscriminate collection of information
• Its not a list of the best selling singles in the UK in 2006 (and even if it were, we have the list at 2006 in British music)
• It doesn't have any explanatory context or content Robdurbar 13:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per well-explained nom. I don't see what it adds beyond 2006 in British music, and it doesn't have much context. Trebor 13:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Bucketsofg 19:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I had hoped my comment on the talk page would prompt someone to turn it into what it should be but the actual list has since been added to 2006 in British music anyway. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep & Rename to "Top UK Singles in 2006" which more accurately reflects the information in this article. The article could use an introduction that provides a little bit more context, but this is a valid list topic. I normally don't like lists, but this is a good example of an appropriate one; it's maintainable, well delineated and it discriminates by a rather common type of criteria for this type of subject. --The Way 00:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as useful list. It is not indiscriminate information as it uses #1 and top 10 singles as criteria. It provides information that a category doesn't and is useful. Needs sourcing but a useful list. It should certainly not be speedy deleted under any criteria that I could see and it would certainly be concerning if someone would speedy delete an article like this. Capitalistroadster 01:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unnecessary and arbitrary, in that: the #1 songs are already covered in the established series of articles xxxx in British music, and the other placings are rather arbitrary: why all the top ten singles? Why not the top 20? 40? 50? 75? Initiate a discussion on the talk page for 2006 in British music, which is a much better article for giving an overview of an actually encyclopaedic topic than this is, to see if folks would support adding this to that article, but as a standalone it is not particularly useful. GassyGuy 04:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Actually, there's no need to even initiate the discussion re: merging this to 2006 in British music, because the top 20 singles are already covered on 2006 in music. So it's basically a pointless duplication of other articles - how many different places need to host this information? GassyGuy 04:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Is a list of all the top-10 singles a copyright violation? If it's not, then a specific article for this has some (limited) merit. Pending clarification of copyright, redirect to 2006 in British music as plausible search term. Eludium-q36 10:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - article appears to serve very little purposem as per all the arguments above. - fchd 17:20, 21 January 2007 (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.