Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Album Number Ones
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. WjBscribe 10:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 2006 Album Number Ones
Un-sourced, un-encyclopedic, and the creating editor is unlikely to bring the article up to standards as he/she was blocked earlier today for repeatedly deleting maintenance tags from 2006 Number Ones, which is also up for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Number Ones). Kralizec! (talk) 01:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I have no clue what these are number ones of. Resolute 04:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Delete there might be some use but I agree with nominee Bulldog123 11:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete WP does not even keep Billboard lists from my experience and they are the premier album list. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's because having them would be violating copyright (and that probably goes for most "top hits" lists from any other source as well). —Resurgent insurgent 2007-05-08 02:01Z
- Comment I'm inclined to support keeping here, inasmuch as I don't think lists of this sort are, or should be, necessarily be disfavored by WP:NOT or WP:LIST, and inasmuch as I think Virgin Radio to be a notable propagator of music, but I'll have to think more about the notabiltiy/cruftiness of a compilation as this. In the meanwhile, though, I would say that there is, at least to my mind, almost surely no copyright concern here; whilst the data are here are not public in precisely the same way as might be (uncopyrightable) album sales or sports statistics, they are plainly not creative products but essentially aggregates of readily observed facts and consequently are ineligible for copyright. We do, in any case, have many articles relative the charts of Billboard that comprise content not dissimilar from that here, most notably a list for every year since 1954 of number-one albums by week (see, e.g., Number-one albums of 2006 (U.S.)). Joe 06:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's because having them would be violating copyright (and that probably goes for most "top hits" lists from any other source as well). —Resurgent insurgent 2007-05-08 02:01Z
- 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.
