Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triple J Hottest 100, 1997

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 Keep Non- Admin Closure :: maelgwn - talk 10:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Triple J Hottest 100, 1997

Triple J Hottest 100, 1997 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete the community has come out differently on whether these top 100 lists are copyvios or not, but even if you come down on the non-copyvio side, is this encyclopedic? no. It's one station's views of things. We have all the various chart lists, what does this really add? There are a bunch more at Category:Triple J Hottest 100 but let's float a test balloon here, first. Carlossuarez46 05:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep or merge all years These albums are a notable annual event in Australia, Bobsbasement 06:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge all years OH SNAP. It is very well-known in Australia. I can't think of a better way to explain my views, but if we have a lot of 'delete' votes I will further explainDarkcraft 06:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete; The chart itself may be notable, that's why there is an article for it at Triple J Hottest 100. That doesn't mean every individual yearly chart needs a separate article, and the top 5 from each year is already listed at Triple J Hottest 100 which is enough. Masaruemoto 07:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The article itself should be based around the CD Release - As that would satisfy notability, I.E. the new one each yeah. I would not however be adversed against the full list of the 100 being included on the page. Regarding the nomination, no this is not "one station's views of things", it is however one station's audience's view of things, the difference is paramount. The article and indeed the chart itself reflects part of the music culture of Australian in different years. Fosnez 09:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment Also, I am trialling a new rescue template after it was suggested it should be placed on the AfD page in it's TfD. Please place comments about the template on it's talk page.Fosnez 09:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Clearly non-encyclopaedic.--Bedivere 21:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom's argument. Keb25 21:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Unless there are independent sources, this should redirect to Triple J Hottest 100. Capitalistroadster 03:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite as per Foznez. The compilation makes the charts each year so it is a notable record. Capitalistroadster 03:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster 03:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Masaruemoto above. The chart itself is most definitely notable, but the 1997 edition of it is not. Lankiveil 09:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep as per Foznez. The CD based on the list is certainly notable. The topic itself is notable in my mind as a very well known listing, produced annually and always released amid a reasonable amount of media coverage. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, the CD is notable, but if the article is about the CD only, then we'd have to get rid of the full #1 to #100 list as well, since not all 100 songs are included. Lankiveil 04:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete, none of this is a bit notable; it is a collection of music. Phgao 06:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Foznez. Notable long running album series. 203.220.107.23 07:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Foznez's reasoning. The article should be about the CD/DVD itself, and perhaps an external link to the page on the Triple J website with the full 100. ~ Sebi [talk] 08:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Foznez's reasoning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.106.95 (talk) 06:39, 21 October 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.