Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British females who reached number one on the Hot 100 (United States)

List of British females who reached number one on the Hot 100 (United States)

List of British females who reached number one on the Hot 100 (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Overly narrow list. Only nine britsh females have ever hit #1 on the Hot 100, no purpose for a list this small. The intro is nearly double the list's length. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 16:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. List scope is too narrow. --BsayUSDCSU[ π ] 00:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, rename or merge—A narrow list criteria doesn't strike me as a valid reason to delete. It is a reason to merge.—RJH (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • comment What article do you propose a merge with? --BsayUSDCSU[ π ] 20:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Rather subjective list that ultimately is only assembled for the purposes of trivia. Why not a list of British males who've hit number one in the US? WesleyDodds (talk) 02:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, perhaps to merge/expand. To WesleyDodds, why not indeed? I don't see how a list tied to a specific and eminently notable achievement can be said to be subjective. The list isn't "Hot chicks who..." To Bsayusd et al, that would be the logical choice for a merge/expansion of this article: List of British artists who reached number one on the Hot 100. The list could be split on the page between male, female and group or it could be a single unisex chronology with the textual delineation. I'm not sure what the length of the intro has to do with it. I've seen AfDs because there was just a list with no context. For disclosure, while I did not create the page, I did expand the article intro some time later, and would not want my work jeopardizing the list's existence. If there's a compelling reason/guideline, I'd have no problem in editing it down; the longest paragraph there, beginning "There were three..." would be the easiest cull, and could go in its entirety. I'd hope there were a more fully expressed reason, however, before this were to get deleted. Abrazame (talk) 09:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a pretty trivial list arrangement, and unnecessarily specific. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about broadening the scope as I suggested? Abrazame (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom, and point no. 6 here. indopug (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. this does not deserve a separate article. how is this not covered on the hot 100 article?--camr ^nag 21:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Response/Comment Which Hot 100 article would you suggest? Presumably not the Hot 100 article. I'd be interested in discussing how it might be incorporated into another article, such as the erroneously named List of artists who reached number one in the United States. (The list notes only those who reached number one on the Billboard Hot 100, not the Cashbox charts, or the Billboard album charts, AC charts, R&B charts, Country charts, Rock charts, Dance charts, etc.) I do hope before someone closes this discussion someone actually discusses my suggestion, or any other suggestion other than deletion. Abrazame (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

i'm sorry, but i don't really see the diff w/ this article. maybe redirect, but any redirect is a different way of saying "delete".--camr ^nag 23:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete obvious LISTCRUFT. Byronwrites (talk) 04:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Request for comment Obviously this is shaping up to delete, with editors paying no attention to my question of whether the information is relevant to include elsewhere. Indeed, most of the respondents grasp so little about the lists that they have suggested here that they are redundant, when that is clearly not the case. The diff between this article and the List in question is that the former doesn't indicate the nationality of the artist, nor does it indicate their sex or the year they had their first hit. It also doesn't give any context. (Did they have more than one hit?) There is no context or information able to be gleaned from the simple List of artists who reached number one in the United States and serves only as a link source to artist articles.

Would it be unacceptable to have a list called List of British artists who reached number one on the Hot 100? Before I go to the trouble of making one and having you all come on there and AfD that too, I'd like to know how broad an examination has to be to be considered relevant. If I want this information to go somewhere, rather than simply be deleted, my choices seem to be to create the article I have been suggesting (to no response whatsoever) for several days here, or I could alternately add country of origin information and other contextual data to the generic List of artists who... Abrazame (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The problem here is the scope is too narrow. Having a list with three criteria (British, female, top 100), narrows the scope too much. Having a list with two criteria is ideal (British, Top 100) if indeed a list is needed that is more specific than the single criteria list (top 100). Based on this, if we did make a list of British artists, we would also have to make a list for other reasonable countries. Now, I am not opposed to making a more broad scope list, but is this really what we want on Wikipedia? I support a merge of this article into something else, what that should be needs some discussion. I propose this AfD be closed and changed to an RfC where we can discuss the fate of this article over a longer period of time and in more detail than possible at an AfD --Bsay@CSU[ π ] 05:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)