Talk:List of one-hit wonders in the United States
 | This article was nominated for deletion on Date. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
 | United States: Music List‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | Record Charts List‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Lists List‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
One-hit wonder inclusion criteria
If you're interested in the topic, your comments would be appreciated at Talk:List of 2010s one-hit wonders in the United States#Inclusion criteria where there is a discussion with sweeping ramifications about whether the "one-hit wonder" articles will be based on charting songs or on artists described in sources. Binksternet (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- Per clear consensus obtained at the discussion, the inclusion criteria are now whether the artist has been called a one-hit wonder by two reliable sources. Chart performance of songs is not among the criteria. As such, the article is now about whether an artist is perceived by the media as being a one-hit wonder. Examining chart successes was the old method; it is not part of the new inclusion criteria. Binksternet (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- So if two sources are wrong, they still qualify? That would be like if two sources state, I don't know, that Michael Jackson is alive, then his article could state that as well. All of the entries I removed (because the artists are not one-hit wonders) can be easily backed up by looking at Billboard (SN: VH1 had a tendency of getting a lot of these things wrong). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 11:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- A song may or may not be a "hit" and may or may not be by the same artist as another song. If Joe Blow has "Solo Single" and Joe Blow and the Blow Notes has "Group Single". Is Joe Blow a one-hit wonder, or is he disqualified by being on both? What if "Second Solo Single" reaches #5 in the UK, but you're writing for a U.S publication and it didn't chart in the U.S.? Is reaching #41 in the U.S. a "hit"? What if it's high on the country charts, but not on the Top 40? Various sources, using the exact same data might disagree whether or not Joe Blow is a one-hit wonder. They aren't "wrong", they're using differing definitions.
- Michael Jackson is either alive or dead. It is unlikely that he is in a state that some would consider "dead" and others would consider "alive". - SummerPhDv2.0 14:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Erpert, there is no "wrong" with regard to whether a reliable source calls a song a "one-hit wonder". The term is a cultural term, loaded with cultural baggage such as memorable qualities, staying power, etc. It's not a precise mathematical term that can be measured by Billboard or other chart success. If the reliable source calls an artist a one-hit wonder, then that source is weighing many factors to arrive at the descriptive label. The clear consensus reached at Talk:List_of_2010s_one-hit_wonders_in_the_United_States#Inclusion_criteria was that the reliable sources were to be the deciding factor, not actual chart success. Binksternet (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- @SummerPhDv2.0: That's why this article refers to the United States, not the United Kingdom.
- @Binksternet: There's a difference between consensus to whether something is actually true and consensus to whether, say, a subject is notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Your argument for consensus seems to reflect the latter school of thought; I might have to look into WP:DRN for this. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 17:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you are saying. Notability on Wikipedia is about whether an article should exist on a topic. Are you talking about nominating this article for deletion because it lacks notability? Binksternet (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- No, I was just making a comparison. My issue is that it seems that two sources automatically define something as correct in this article, even if the sources are unreliable and/or just plain incorrect. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 17:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think most of us here are working to find reliable sources on the topic. If one of them proved to be unreliable, it should be removed as such, along with any dependent entries. Regarding whether the label one-hit wonder is "just plain incorrect", my position is that it's impossible for these sources to be incorrect about a subjective, culturally loaded term. They would only be incorrect if they were saying, for instance, that Albert Hammond had no other Top 40 chart successes in the US after "It Never Rains in Southern California". The latter statement goes against an objective truth, measured by sales and chart results, because the song "I'm a Train" reached the Top 40. The label "one-hit wonder" is presented here as a subjective term, an opinion expressed by the reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- "Working to find reliable sources"? There is one, already. It's called the Billboard Hot 100. A "one-hit wonder" is an artist or group that had only one Top 40 hit on the Hot 100 at any time. Anyone who says otherwise is full of crap. 50.111.24.195 (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- The discussion of your displeasure with the current criteria is at Talk:List_of_one-hit_wonders_in_the_United_States#Inclusion_Criteria. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- "Working to find reliable sources"? There is one, already. It's called the Billboard Hot 100. A "one-hit wonder" is an artist or group that had only one Top 40 hit on the Hot 100 at any time. Anyone who says otherwise is full of crap. 50.111.24.195 (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think most of us here are working to find reliable sources on the topic. If one of them proved to be unreliable, it should be removed as such, along with any dependent entries. Regarding whether the label one-hit wonder is "just plain incorrect", my position is that it's impossible for these sources to be incorrect about a subjective, culturally loaded term. They would only be incorrect if they were saying, for instance, that Albert Hammond had no other Top 40 chart successes in the US after "It Never Rains in Southern California". The latter statement goes against an objective truth, measured by sales and chart results, because the song "I'm a Train" reached the Top 40. The label "one-hit wonder" is presented here as a subjective term, an opinion expressed by the reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- No, I was just making a comparison. My issue is that it seems that two sources automatically define something as correct in this article, even if the sources are unreliable and/or just plain incorrect. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 17:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you are saying. Notability on Wikipedia is about whether an article should exist on a topic. Are you talking about nominating this article for deletion because it lacks notability? Binksternet (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- So if two sources are wrong, they still qualify? That would be like if two sources state, I don't know, that Michael Jackson is alive, then his article could state that as well. All of the entries I removed (because the artists are not one-hit wonders) can be easily backed up by looking at Billboard (SN: VH1 had a tendency of getting a lot of these things wrong). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 11:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Reliable sources have called Roy Clark a "one-hit wonder"? That would make me rethink my definition of "reliable."Carlo (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- If I called Roy Clark a "qwerty", would I be wrong? Let's assume for the moment that those sources call Roy Clark a "qwerty". You think "qwerty" means cheese sandwich. Are those sources wrong? Clark obviously is not a cheese sandwich, right? What if the sources use "querty" to mean H. sapiens. Are the sources wrong? Are you wrong? Maybe, just maybe, you mean something other than what the sources mean.
- Wikipedia has a meaning for "reliable sources", outlined at WP:IRS. You are free to disagree with WP:IRS. You are also free to disagree with what reliable sources say. We're not dealing with hardcore facts here. "One-hit wonder" is a slippery term. - SummerPhDv2.0 00:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Reliable sources have called Roy Clark a "one-hit wonder"? That would make me rethink my definition of "reliable."Carlo (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- The word "reliable" is not reliable, it is a weasel word. And if two sources said the Beatles were just a one hit wonder in 1963, then that justifies calling the Fab Four a one hit wonder? Just because we like to have sources, doesn't mean we don't have to be careful about what we use them for. Roy Clark is anything but a one hit wonder. This list is fucked, end of story. 184.69.174.194 (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has policies and guidelines. If you don't like them, you can:
- 1) work to change the policies
- 2) ignore the policies and be shown the door
- 3) rant.
- One of those is productive.
- At the moment, the consensus here has established inclusion criteria for this article and Roy Clark meets those criteria. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- The word "reliable" is not reliable, it is a weasel word. And if two sources said the Beatles were just a one hit wonder in 1963, then that justifies calling the Fab Four a one hit wonder? Just because we like to have sources, doesn't mean we don't have to be careful about what we use them for. Roy Clark is anything but a one hit wonder. This list is fucked, end of story. 184.69.174.194 (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Why is the human league on the list?
They had 2 US number ones and a top 10 hit so not a one hit wonder. Bob3458 (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Simply 'cause the media sources found have claimed them as such. Remember that chart history is now irrelevant here. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 10:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- So any jerk with a blog calls someone a one hit wonder and that is gospell? God help us. Just because something is in print doesn't mean it is worthy of entering into the recorded sum of human knowledge that is wikipedia. 184.69.174.194 (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- No, not "any jerk with a blog". Most blogs are not reliable sources for much of anything, as explained at WP:SPS. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The second source did not call it a one-hit wonder. It said it was one of several favorites "non-one-hit wonders included". I've removed it. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Artists I Think Can Be Added
I think we should add: Augustana - Boston, Howie Day - Collide, Crazy Town - Butterfly, The Ting Tings - That's Not My Name, The Ready Set - Love Like Woe, Alexandra Stan - Mr. Saxobeat Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 10:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Sources? - SummerPhDv2.0 16:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Some sources, though I don't really know what can be considered as a reliable source since the article is now opinion-based: http://www.houstonpress.com/music/our-10-least-favorite-one-hit-wonders-6760197 https://www.scoopwhoop.com/inothernews/one-hit-wonders-music/ http://www.seventeen.com/celebrity/a30123/one-hit-wonders-were-still-singing/ https://www.buzzfeed.com/tanyachen/one-hit-wonders-then-now Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- They sound good to me. One criteria I use, is I've never heard of them. N1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.69.174.194 (talk) 05:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Decluttering
I am removing all of the commented out songs wanting for a second source. If they don't meet the criteria for the article, they don't belong in the article.
Failed entries removed
|
|---|
*[[Lustra (band)|Lustra]] – "[[Scotty Doesn't Know]]" (2004)<ref name="Paste"/> |
The single-source non-entry entries outnumbered the properly sourced entries by 221 to 194. Other than someone really wanting to include them, I can't imagine why we would have a poorly sourced shadow list -- with its own inclusion criteria -- buried in the actual list. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's not about what I was "wanting" to include. I don't want to include any of these, as the label "one-hit wonder" is often considered derogatory. Instead, I was trying to make the list usefully complete for the reader, and I noticed that it was difficult to search by artist, and a lot easier to hunt through one source at a time. The artists listed with only one reference were put there as a normal part of building the article back up after its radical restructuring, under the assumption that a second reference would soon be found. I notice that DepressedPer made very good use of the artists with only one reference, helping to build the list back up in the way I intended. You've made the process more difficult by removing them to the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- The criteria doesn't seem clear. In reading the criteria section, one of them says "can only be seen as a "one hit wonder" if they have never had a second Billboard top 10 hit, if any subsequent top 40 singles were released within six months of their first big hit, and if the artist has not had three or more top 10 or Platinum albums." Another one was "uses the criterion that an artist is ineligible to be categorized as a "one-hit wonder" if they have a second song listed on the Billboard Hot 100." However, several artists seem to contradict that. For instance, Quarterflash's page indicates that "Take Me To Heart" was released two years after their 1981 hit "Harden My Heart" and peaks at 14 on the Hot 100 / 6 US Rock. Eddy Grant's "Romancing the Stone" peaked at 26 despite being released two years hit main hit.S-1-5-7 (talk) 07:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Ridiculous criteria
Pretty ridiculous criteria imo. Most of the authors of these sources have no more insight than your average Wikipedia editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OSB95 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Do you have criteria that you would like to suggest, keeping in mind WP:SYN and WP:CSC? - SummerPhDv2.0 01:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- The average Wikipedia editor is not a published music journalist. Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources, not editors shooting from the hip. Binksternet (talk) 03:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I think the criteria would be that it has to be judged through a panel of people using convincing arguments. Most of the sources being used are unreliable tabloid sites like Buzzfeed anyways. I do agree that some of the ones removed in that list is validated like Flaming Lips, Amy Winehouse(WTF...), Third Eye Blind, Take That(WTF...), Lou Reed(WTF...), Nik Kershaw, XTC, Status Quo(WTF...), T.Rex(WTF...) and Shirley Bassey. All of these are multiple hits Band/Artists. But most of the rest should get back on the list. I would even add songs like Black Betty - Ram Jam, Narcotic - Liquido, I Can See Clearly Now - Johnny Nash, Deceptacon - Le Tigre, and Superstar - Jamelia to the list.— Preceding unsigned comment added by OSB95 (talk • contribs) 17:58, April 20, 2018 (UTC)
- That is not how Wikipedia works. Long story short: Wikipedia does not include original research, whether it is from one editor or a panel of editors. Instead, all material must be verifiable: published in independent reliable sources.
- So, for example, we do not use the opinions of editors to determine if the Earth is spherical or flat, HIV causes AIDS, vitamin B12 is a necessary nutrient, sugar causes hyperactivity in children or "Walk on the Wild Side" is Lou Reed's only hit. On all of those questions (and millions more) we report what reliable sources say, not what we think (there are editors who would argue on either side of each of those questions). For more detail, please see Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. - SummerPhDv2.0 04:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
'Reliable sources' = every source which promotes the agenda Wikipedia themselves like.OSB95 (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- If you feel the project has an "agenda" regarding how many "hits" Lou Reed has had, I really can't help you. - SummerPhDv2.0 04:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- Not what I said at all, strawman much? I only said this 'reliable sources' is agenda driven camouflageOSB95 (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry I misunderstood you. What "agenda" do you feel is being hidden here? - SummerPhDv2.0 00:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- Please, go back to the Hot 100. 50.111.24.195 (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- The discussion of your displeasure with the current criteria is at Talk:List_of_one-hit_wonders_in_the_United_States#Inclusion_Criteria. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Please, go back to the Hot 100. 50.111.24.195 (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry I misunderstood you. What "agenda" do you feel is being hidden here? - SummerPhDv2.0 00:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- Not what I said at all, strawman much? I only said this 'reliable sources' is agenda driven camouflageOSB95 (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- This page documents which artists have been called "one-hit wonders" in the US, citing two sources for each entry. As such, the entries are strongly adhering to the policy WP:Verifiability. It doesn't have to be fair to the artist – that's not the point. The point is to fairly represent the sources. If you don't like some of the sources, take those ones to WP:RSN, and see what they say. If you don't like the inclusion criteria, start a new WP:RFC about it. Binksternet (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Book Sources
How exactly can we fact check the book sources when some of them can't be found online? I wanna know since some of the songs on the list have been removed for having incorrect sources. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- You would probably need to check the book sources. I don't know where you live, libraries are still a thing. - SummerPhDv2.0 12:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Inclusion Criteria
Although I'm aware that last month's discussion on consolidating the article into the current list has closed, I'd like to add my two cents to the discussion, even if they don't result in changes to the current list.
Unlike many in the talk pages for the previous article, I was a fan of the Billboard Hot 100-specific inclusion because it allowed for a way to objectively and numerically determine inclusion using an industry standard as a metric. All that the current list requires is two different articles mentioning the artist being a one-hit wonder, regardless of the quality of the source. It introduces a level of subjectivity that the previous list didn't have.
Additionally, a few topics of discussion were brought up in the talk page that I feel need clarification. First, the "decade-specific" lists did NOT list artists that had one hit in the 90s and another in the 2000s (for instance, Weezer was not listed because of Buddy Holly ('94) and Beverly Hills ('05)). In short, the only acts included only charted one top-40 song in their entire career.
Secondly, the heading in all of the decade-specific lists clearly stated that acts were listed regardless of their critical standings, success in other country, or recognition in other fields of work; although this used to be the case. By removing these clarifications, this got rid of trivia that accumulated at the bottom of the page. It got to the point where almost every artist listed had some sort of footnote listing critical success or success in another country. Furthermore, if lack of footnotes was a concern in the original article, this article also fails to include them. Finally, from an aesthetics perspective, the list is also unruly.
The list wasn't perfect (obviously, Boy Meets Girl is more of a one-hit act than N.W.A.) but it provided objectivity to an industry standard - Billboard Magazine - that this current list lacks. I'd love to hear thoughts on this, and am open to a discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princeparrotfish (talk • contribs) 18:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- But the term "one-hit wonder" is not solely defined by Billboard books, or even by Jancik's book. It's defined by various reviewers in different ways. So if we were to host an article adhering strictly to one source's criterion, then the article title should reflect that: something like ''Billboard's'' list of one-wonders. I think the reader is better served with the new criteria. Binksternet (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- The current inclusion criteria for this list call for two sources directly stating that it is a one-hit wonder. Under those criteria, there is little to discuss. If Rolling Stone and Entertainment Weekly both called the Beatles a one hit wonder, they would be included (and we would likely need to reconsider our inclusion criteria).
- Such is the current situation: We have the two sources, we include it. If you do not think the inclusion criteria work, we can discuss that. If we change the criteria, we will need to update the list. Until then, however, we pretty much have to use the criteria we have (as we cannot have a list without inclusion criteria or criteria that we ignore). - SummerPhDv2.0 19:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- This list is incorrect. I have been trying to fix this page several times now, because several acts that are not one-hit wonders are being treated as such. A Flock of Seagulls, Madness, Matthew Wilder, a-ha, Dead or Alive, 'Til Tuesday, and Swing Out Sister have had subsequent Top 40 hits. I propose we go back to using Billboard's Hot 100 as the standard. 50.111.24.195 (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- And if that means an edit war, then it's on. 50.111.24.195 (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- If you disagree with the current inclusion criteria, you have three basic options:
- 1) Accept that they exist, whether you like them or not.
- 2) Discuss the issue here in hopes of changing the criteria.
- 3) Edit against the consensus.
- It sounds like you are leaning toward #3, expecting an edit war. I personally will not edit war. I will revert you and direct you to the established consensus on the talk page. Once you make it clear that you are not interested in #1 or #2, I will ask to have you blocked from editing. To ensure that you have seen this message, I am posting a note on your talk page. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- To be completely clear here, you have been reverted by three editors, warned for WP:3RR and gotten the messages from me. If you are in any way unsure if an edit you are about to make is against the consensus, I would strongly suggest discussing it here first. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- The consensus is wrong. I would lean towards #2, because there's no way in hell I'm doing #1. Please go back to the Hot 100. 50.111.24.195 (talk) 03:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- How do you resolve the obvious conflict between your suggestion and WP:OR, outlined in the discussion at Talk:List_of_2010s_one-hit_wonders_in_the_United_States#Inclusion_criteria? - SummerPhDv2.0 03:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Go back to the Hot 100. If an artist or group has only one hit on the Hot 100, they're counted as a one-hit wonder. No footnotes about hits on other charts, no notes about who charted once in each decade, just a straight and simple list of one-hit wonders for each decade according to Billboard. If it's good enough for Casey Kasem, it's good enough for me and should be good enough for you. 50.111.24.195 (talk) 03:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- In other words, restore and clean up the pages you tore down. 50.111.24.195 (talk) 03:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- You did not address the question.
- How do you resolve the obvious conflict between your suggestion and WP:OR, outlined in the discussion at Talk:List_of_2010s_one-hit_wonders_in_the_United_States#Inclusion_criteria? - SummerPhDv2.0 03:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- How do I resolve the conflict? I say forget the conflict entirely. There is original research. It's called the Billboard Hot 100. Joel Whitburn has written countless books on the matter. All you have to do is look up the chart history of an artist on Billboard.com or one of Joel's books and cite it. 50.111.24.195 (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- You are arguing that we should ignore one of the pillars of the project while making it quite clear that you have either not read or did not understand the policy in question. Unless you have something new to add, I think we're done here. - SummerPhDv2.0 04:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- How do I resolve the conflict? I say forget the conflict entirely. There is original research. It's called the Billboard Hot 100. Joel Whitburn has written countless books on the matter. All you have to do is look up the chart history of an artist on Billboard.com or one of Joel's books and cite it. 50.111.24.195 (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I wonder about the inclusion of the Grateful Dead for "Touch of Grey" when their 1970 release "Trucking" also cracked the Top 40. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.122.195 (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Why is Dead or Alive on this list?
I'm new to editing Wikipedia pages and hope this is the right place to ask this. But why is Dead or Alive on this list with "You Spin Me Round" when "Brand New Lover" made it up to #15 on the US Pop Chart in 1987? They also had other hits in the top 100. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lancek7 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- I know, right? We need to go back to the official authority, the Billboard Hot 100. 50.111.24.195 (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Dead or Alive is on the list because it meets the current inclusion criteria (see above). - SummerPhDv2.0 03:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Which is incorrect, according to Billboard. 50.111.24.195 (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you are saying. Billboard clearly has not discussed this article's inclusion criteria. The discussion of your displeasure with the current criteria is at Talk:List_of_one-hit_wonders_in_the_United_States#Inclusion_Criteria. - SummerPhDv2.0 04:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Which is incorrect, according to Billboard. 50.111.24.195 (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Entries with just one reference (two are required by the inclusion criteria)
Someone just added these entries with only one reference, which I removed from the article and placed here pending a second reference to be found. Binksternet (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Awolnation - " Sail " (2010)[1]
- Duck Sauce - " Barbra Streisand " (2010)[1]
- Edward Maya - "Stereo Love" (2010)[1]
- Tinie Tempah and Eric Turner - "Written in the Stars" (2010)[1]
- Yolanda Be Cool and DCUP - "We No Speak Americano" (2010)[1]
- Alexandra Stan - "Mr. Saxobeat" (2011)[1]
- Baauer - "Harlem Shake" (2012)[1]
- Passenger - "Let Her Go" (2012)[1]
- A Great Big World - " Say Something" (2013)[1]
- American Authors - "Best Day of My Life" (2013)[1]
- Capital Cities - " Safe and Sound " (2013)[1]
- Milky Chance - "Stolen Dance" (2013)[1]
- Vance Joy - " Riptide " (2013)[1]
- Ylvis - "The Fox (What Does the Fox Say?)" (2013)[1]
- Ella Henderson - " Ghost " (2014)[1]
- Elle King - "Ex's and Oh's" (2014)[1]
- Lilly Wood and the Prick - "Prayer in C" (2014)[1]
- Mr Probz - " Waves " (2014)[1]
- Rixton - "Me and My Broken Heart (2014)[1]
- Walk the Moon - " Shut Up and Dance " (2014)[1]
- Hozier - "Take Me to Church (2014)[2]
- Foster the People - "Pumped Up Kicks" (2010)[2]
- La Roux - " Bulletproof " (2010)[3]
- Swedish House Mafia - "Don't You Worry Child" (2012)[3]
References
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t "TOP 25 ONE HIT WONDERS OF THE 2010S - FIRST HALF". YouTube. Retrieved January 12, 2018.
- ^ a b "7 one-hit wonders from the 2010s". Yeah But Seriously Though. Retrieved January 12, 2018.
- ^ a b "7 one-hit wonders from the 2010s". Quad-City Times. Retrieved January 12, 2018.
- Also, I'm wondering whether the YouTube channel of Bamboo Entertainment is a reliable source. It appears to be the creation of one person, Max Wevers from Germany, who uses the moniker maxkroel on Instagram and Pinterest, and maxxshizzles on YouTube. If so, it should not be used per WP:SELFPUB. Otherwise, I would question whether the cited source is pertinent to the US alone – it appears to be aimed worldwide. Binksternet (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
foster the people technically a one hit wonder
but their new single
in the hot 100 for weeks and now #42
True by Spandau Ballet
I think that we should add True by Spandau Ballet to the list since we have Take On Me by a-ha where both artists have had two Billboard Top 40 hits but only one was siginificant. 112.205.215.42 (talk) 04:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- The current inclusion criteria call for two independent reliable sources directly stating the act is a one-hit wonder. - SummerPhDv2.0 05:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Not only do we need two sources for each entry, but the sources should be portraying the US point of view. Britannica doesn't do that. Binksternet (talk) 05:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- But there is one source that does, and is far more accurate. Billboard. 50.111.24.195 (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- That does not meet this article's current inclusion criteria. The discussion of your displeasure with the current criteria is at Talk:List_of_one-hit_wonders_in_the_United_States#Inclusion_Criteria. - SummerPhDv2.0 04:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I just added them yesterday, a Britannica source with a US point of view and a popular US radio show are the two sources I used as proof that they really are a one-hit-wonder in the US. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 07:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
RfC about inclusion criteria
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
How much should statistics from the Hot 100 factor into determining inclusion criteria for "one-hit wonders"? 50.111.24.195 (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Survey
- 1: A great deal. After all, the statistics are there.
- 2: They should play some role, but let's stay objective.
Not at all - Per synthesis and SummerPhDv2.0. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Not at all - See below for policy-based explanation. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Not at all I won't even get into the fact that I'm not a fan of the "one hit wonder" term to begin with, but the Hot 100 is very flawed, in my opinion. It's too easily manipulated in order to make a song appear more popular than it actually is in reality. StrikerforceTalk 13:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Not at all Summoned by a bot. Per threaded discussion below and WP:SYNTH. Comatmebro (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Threaded discussion
- You are presenting a false dichotomy. My !vote is 3. Not at all. Taking numbers from various charts to determine whether the facts fit our definition of "one-hit wonders in the United States" is synthesis, as previously determined in discussing the criteria, resulting in a unanimous consensus. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's not about you and your definition. It's about what actually is a "one-hit wonder". A lot of hard work went into those lists of one-hit wonders, only to be thrown away in favor of sources who actually don't know what they're talking about. A Flock of Seagulls had two other (relatively minor) Top 40 hits after "I Ran". Madness had another one, as did Matthew Wilder, a-ha, 'Til Tuesday, Dead or Alive, Johnny Hates Jazz and Swing Out Sister. While nobody seems to remember their other hits, they did have other hits. Statistics are statistics, and facts are facts. Furthermore, it isn't various charts, it's one chart. The Billboard Hot 100. You and your fellow editors are using two different sources for each song. How can you verify that each source is correct? Why not use a statistics-based approach that is absolutely correct, the music industry standard record chart in the United States? The Hot 100 is the gold standard, and is one single source. 50.111.24.195 (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- WP:SYN is part of one of Wikipedia's 5 core policies. It says, in part, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." You cannot take a definition for "one hit wonder" from one source (or make one up) and apply that definition to material from another source. You must have a source that directly states an act is a "one hit wonder" to call them a "one hit wonder". How do we know the sources are "correct"? We don't. We aren't asking if they are "right", we are asking if they are reliable. You can argue as long as you would like that various sources are "wrong" about whether or not John Hanson was the first president of the United States, the Earth is flat, AIDS is not caused by a virus, vegetables are a good source of vitamin B12 or a million other things. You might be right about any one of them, but we are not here to decide that. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources have to say about a subject: the shape of the Earth, sources of B12, what acts are "one hit wonders". - SummerPhDv2.0 18:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Then here's what I suggest you do. Create a new series of articles titled "Artists who scored one Billboard Top 40 hit in the XXXXs". Create one for the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s, and 2010s. A lot of work went into those pages the first time, and they are perfectly serviceable. Give the statistics-based inclusion criteria and Billboard-based data to those who want it, and then you can have your page. There are some of us who enjoy chart trivia, and there is enough room for everyone. 50.111.24.195 (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- No, I will not create a series of articles based on original research. Why would I? - SummerPhDv2.0 05:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- Then here's what I suggest you do. Create a new series of articles titled "Artists who scored one Billboard Top 40 hit in the XXXXs". Create one for the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s, and 2010s. A lot of work went into those pages the first time, and they are perfectly serviceable. Give the statistics-based inclusion criteria and Billboard-based data to those who want it, and then you can have your page. There are some of us who enjoy chart trivia, and there is enough room for everyone. 50.111.24.195 (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- WP:SYN is part of one of Wikipedia's 5 core policies. It says, in part, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." You cannot take a definition for "one hit wonder" from one source (or make one up) and apply that definition to material from another source. You must have a source that directly states an act is a "one hit wonder" to call them a "one hit wonder". How do we know the sources are "correct"? We don't. We aren't asking if they are "right", we are asking if they are reliable. You can argue as long as you would like that various sources are "wrong" about whether or not John Hanson was the first president of the United States, the Earth is flat, AIDS is not caused by a virus, vegetables are a good source of vitamin B12 or a million other things. You might be right about any one of them, but we are not here to decide that. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources have to say about a subject: the shape of the Earth, sources of B12, what acts are "one hit wonders". - SummerPhDv2.0 18:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's not about you and your definition. It's about what actually is a "one-hit wonder". A lot of hard work went into those lists of one-hit wonders, only to be thrown away in favor of sources who actually don't know what they're talking about. A Flock of Seagulls had two other (relatively minor) Top 40 hits after "I Ran". Madness had another one, as did Matthew Wilder, a-ha, 'Til Tuesday, Dead or Alive, Johnny Hates Jazz and Swing Out Sister. While nobody seems to remember their other hits, they did have other hits. Statistics are statistics, and facts are facts. Furthermore, it isn't various charts, it's one chart. The Billboard Hot 100. You and your fellow editors are using two different sources for each song. How can you verify that each source is correct? Why not use a statistics-based approach that is absolutely correct, the music industry standard record chart in the United States? The Hot 100 is the gold standard, and is one single source. 50.111.24.195 (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- 3, Not at all. I'm sorry that people performed "a lot of hard work" in creating, fleshing out and updating the various articles about one-wonders in the US, an article for each decade. The hard work claim makes me think this effort was more like original research (creation of new thought) than summarizing sources for the reader. Wikipedia is intended to be a summary of sources, which is why I cannot support the notion that "chart trivia", based on personal analysis of various chart results, is an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. Binksternet (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- It is summarizing a source. The Billboard Hot 100, the gold standard of American music charts. What we should be concerned about is the accuracy of the information. Yes, you may have a number of entertainment publications claiming an act is a one-hit wonder, but are they actually? Just because an act's other hits on the Top 40 are minor doesn't mean they don't exist. 50.111.24.195 (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- 1, a great deal When the previous content existed, there was also a very specific definition for inclusion, a core principle for lists on wikipedia; that the artist named had exactly one, Top 40 (single) hit in the Billboard Hot 100. That is statistically easy to determine, though the Hot 100 lists for each country are obviously lengthy over almost 70 years. It took a lot of labor by a lot of people to refine those previously existing lists. Because wikipedia is a user contributory system, there were also errors in both directions because some users did not understand the definition or were offended by it. One of the major advantages of wikipedia is that by compiling information from multiple sources, our reporting can be theoretically BETTER than the individual sources, which are mostly music publications, each with a more narrow focus for the purposes a particular article. That also involves a collaboration system, discussion and consensus. In this subject, because we have a lot of pop-in, one hit wonder editors, perhaps we need to expand this a little further to include a categorized, offline (meaning talk page) list of excluded artists, associated to the discussion of each case. The swath of one editor's strong opinion and click, Summer, should not wipe out the cumulative efforts of hundreds of editors over the course of years. Trackinfo (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, my "one click" removed the shadow article hidden in comments in the live verifiable article supported by the consensus inclusion criteria. If you'd like to pursue any line of questioning on that, feel free to take it to an appropriate venue. This is not that venue.
- The current consensus found that your version is contrary to policy. Arguing that a lot of work went into the original research, creating material not found in the sources does not seem to address that point. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- I knew I had your support, Trackinfo. Years of effort and hard work should not be sacrificed because the term "one hit wonder" is "culturally loaded". 50.111.24.195 (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- That would be why to brought them here. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't ask him to come. 50.111.24.195 (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- I was not brought here. Bad accusation. I have been watching all of these articles for years. I commented on the improper procedure of the original "consensus" to blank this material. I watch and contribute to a lot of articles, I respond when I see activity.Trackinfo (talk) 05:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Now, the focus here should be on content, not on my alleged canvassing. The fact of the matter remains that at least two of us disagree with the current classification criteria of a "one hit wonder". Now, surely there must be a compromise here. My greatest concern is that acts in this list that are credited as "one hit wonders" are actually not, at least according to Billboard. Looking at the 1980s list, I see A Flock of Seagulls, Madness, Matthew Wilder, a-ha, Dead or Alive, 'Til Tuesday, Swing Out Sister, and Johnny Hates Jazz. That's at least eight acts that I know of that have more than one Top 40 hit. It drives chart enthusiasts like me crazy and upsets us greatly. Now, if you're not going to restore the lists of one-hit wonders that were up here many months ago, then please ensure that the one-hit wonders that are being listed are correct. I think that's a fair enough compromise. 50.111.24.195 (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- This is not a vote. So far, the !votes against your proposal are making policy-based arguments. The current consensus found that your idea violates WP:OR. Your proposal is that we ignore one of the pillars of the project each and every time we add or remove material in this article. Your "compromise" is that we use WP:OR to decide if verifiable information is correct based on your understanding of that a "one-hit wonder" is. That's the same problem in a fresh shirt. - SummerPhDv2.0 05:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- Come on, work with us here. I'm not suggesting we add material, I'm just suggesting you remove those eight aforementioned acts that have had more than one Top 40 hit in the 80s, according to Billboard. 50.111.24.195 (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- It seems to me your argument is starting to impede on I just don't like it,, you can however, try to change policy, I do suggest not engaging in canvassing there. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- It seems we have, indeed, come to a Mexican standoff, for which I am on the losing end. I, unfortunately, do not have the brains or know how to change policy. Do you have any other suggestions? 50.111.24.195 (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- It seems to me your argument is starting to impede on I just don't like it,, you can however, try to change policy, I do suggest not engaging in canvassing there. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't ask him to come. 50.111.24.195 (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- That would be why to brought them here. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
The accusation of these articles is misguided. There is but one source, the Billboard Top 40 archive, for this content. What takes the work, work already accomplished until this series of articles was decimated, is in compiling data from that one source and for notes, compiling individual names that make up these bands. Put your fingers in your ears and hum, but I already told you this; the compilation efforts of hundreds of historical wikipedia editors is and will always be far superior to the occasional efforts of individual reporters who write focused, occasional articles. Those kind of helpful editors are the best part of wikipedia and what makes wikipedia better than sources. Conversely, the kind of editors that spend their time deleting content are the worst. Trackinfo (talk) 06:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Reversing the Thought Process
Hi!
I just got here and I see that the debate over what does and doesn't belong on the list still has some spirited participants. While I can't say his approach won any fans, I think 50.111.24.195 does raise a fundamental point about an opinion-based list can go against seemly "natural" conclusions from quantitative facts about Billboard chart performance. It's something that I'd like to make another attempt to sway your opinions on, no threats of edit wars involved.
His primary concerns (and mine) have been bands that have made multiple appearances on either the Billboard Hot 100, or more specifically the Top 40 within it. Let's go with Top 40. Now, I did have a glance at WP:OR and still think there is a healthy way to synthesize the concerns at hand without contradicting the pillars of Wikipedia. (Bear in mind that these same issues appear on other adjacent pages, too.)
Consider the following. Dream is currently being sourced to Nylon and MTV as a one-hit wonder. They have had two songs reach not only the Billboard Hot 100 but the Top 40. So far, the conversation would simply end, and rightly so: all I've done so far is point to Billboard statistics and state my own original conclusion! But, what do you say if I were present you with a Rolling Stone article that refers to them explicitly as a "two-hit wonder" on that exact basis? Then the basis is no longer mine, and the research is no longer troublesomely original, is it?
That same article, also mentions a-ha, who 50.111.24.195 directly mentions as a questionable inclusion. The same could be said about this Business Insider article and its reference to Dead or Alive in the same way. Or Yahoo! Entertainment here contradicting the status of EMF. How about a different article from the same source referring to A Flock of Seagulls as a "three-hit wonder" of all things?
(There, now I've included some that isn't already on this list one internal link away. Would have saved me some time, but anyway... also, why does it include Dead or Alive as entry 21 in a 20-item list? Wasn't me! Right, where was I?)
While I absolutely see right away the importance on insisting on no original research, the fact of the matter is the "research" required to form valid counterclaims has already been done, and is readily available. Since there is no agreed-upon definition of "success" by which a "one-hit wonder" can ever scientifically be defined, yes, the Billboard chart alone is not enough to dismiss sourced opinion. But those measurements, in turn, are invariably going to lead to people who use them to refute their status, and of course many of these will be in forms acceptable to reference as sources!
That two Wikipedia pages, that directly lead to each other, refer to several bands as both "one-hit" and "two-hit" simultaneously seems to be in poor form, no? Especially without some form of acknowledgment as to sources in dispute on the matter on the list page which most readily presents the information in question? Whatever I may feel about the current standard, its application here seems to be inconsistent at best, so then should these "disputed claims" be relocated to each country's individual list page?
It is on this basis that I would suggest to either cordon off disputed entries in a dedicated subsection, or strike them outright. I would greatly appreciate any additional comments or input, building from what I've presented here.
74.108.34.95 (talk) 09:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
FOSTER THE PEOPLE not one hit wonder by next week
their single is now at #42 on the hot 100 next week top 40 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:191:5FA0:C034:7B74:85D9:4638 (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Jsusky (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Propose to create a separate, legitimate, list
Call it something like:
"List of Billboard Top 40 one-hit wonders in the United States"
(this is somewhat objective, anyway)
or:
"Objective List of one-hit wonders in the United States"
The "two sources by 'the media' " criterion is crap - hardly objective - especially since for many years the Billboard lists were supported by actual cash-on-the-barrelhead purchases.
'nuff said.
Murray Head and Yvonne Elliman
I removed the paragraph about Murray Head and Yvonne Elliman because the cited source (a) lists Head as a one-hit wonder for a different reason than was implied, and (b) doesn't call Elliman a one-hit wonder, meaning that she doesn't have two sources calling her a one-hit wonder.
Specifically, Mann 2003 states, "Although 'One Night in Bangkok' remains Murray Head's only Top 40 hit as purely a solo act, the Englishman did reach #14 back in 1971 with a track called 'Superstar,' which was featured in the rock opera Jesus Christ Superstar. Those who owned 'Superstar' on 45 might recall that the label listed the artist as Murray Head with The Trinidad Singers." That is, the issue was not that Head was credited as "Judas Iscariot" as the paragraph had implied, but that he was credited with a backup group on that single, and only one of his hit records ("One Night in Bangkok") was credited to him as a purely solo act.
The same source also does not say anything about Yvonne Elliman being a one-hit wonder. All it says about Elliman is, "Head actually played Judas in the original London production of Jesus Christ Superstar, with Ian Gillan of Deep Purple as Jesus and Yvonne 'If I Can't Have You' Elliman taking the role of Mary Magdalene." That doesn't mean that Mann called her a one-hit wonder. Since Mann didn't call Elliman a one-hit wonder, she is down to one source calling her a one-hit wonder and thus I removed her from the list. (She actually had five Top 40 hits.)
Note that I didn't remove Murray Head from the list of one-hit wonders; Mann did call him a one-hit wonder. I only removed the paragraph which connected his status as a one-hit wonder to Jesus Christ Superstar. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- The wikipedia article on Murray Head cites him in the first line as a guy "with two international hits", so his inclusion goes right down the toilet there. The list of people who only had US hits is ridiculously narrow, and not worthy of creating. 184.69.174.194 (talk) 04:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- The current consensus inclusion criteria here call for two or more independent reliable sources directing calling the artist a "one-hit wonder". Head meets those criteria.
- If you disagree with the current criteria, you will need to suggest objective sourced criteria here and build a consensus for those criteria. Until then, the criteria we have are the criteria we use. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The Fireballs
I have added Jimmy Gilmer and The Fireballs to the 1960s list. The Larkin reference (ISBN: 9780857125958) did not explicitly say one-hit-wonder but it states that Sugar Shack stayed at number 1 for 5 weeks but the band - despite several singles and albums released - was unable to reach the same success. The second source list the band as one-hit wonder. Please feel free to remove it if this entry does not qualify. Cheers! - Darwin Naz (talk) 00:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- The second source does call the band a one-hit wonder, but the Larkin reference definitely does not. The passage you are referring to says, "The result was one of the bestselling hits of 1963 - 'Sugar Shack' stayed at number 1 for five weeks late in the year. An album of the same title also charted. Although several other singles and albums were released, the group was unable to capitalize on that success, although 'Daisy Petal Pickin′' made number 15 in December." [1] The book also refers to four other Top 40 singles by the same band. Whatever it means to not be able to "capitalize" on the success of their biggest hit single, it doesn't necessarily mean that the band was a "one-hit wonder" -- a term that Larkin does use in reference to certain other artists (Arthur Conley, Count Five), but not the Fireballs. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Reliable source? HotPopSongs and Joe Hummel III
I'm doubting whether www.hotpopsongs.com is a reliable source, as it appears to be self-published by Joe Hummel III, who is not an acknowledged expert. The following references are used in our article. Binksternet (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- https://hotpopsongs.com/1980-one-hit-wonders-artists-known-one-song/
- https://hotpopsongs.com/1983-one-hit-wonders-artists-known-one-song/
- https://hotpopsongs.com/1984-one-hit-wonders-artists-known-one-song/
- https://hotpopsongs.com/1985-one-hit-wonders-artists-known-one-song/
- https://hotpopsongs.com/1986-one-hit-wonders-artists-known-one-song/
- https://hotpopsongs.com/1987-one-hit-wonders-artists-known-one-song/
- https://hotpopsongs.com/1988-one-hit-wonders-artists-known-one-song/
- https://hotpopsongs.com/1989-one-hit-wonders-artists-known-one-song/
Until another website lists the artists, just use this one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.9.168 (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Should this list still exist since the criteria for addition is arbitrary?
This list is basically just throwing together sources that are not really in agreement and have differing views on what constitutes a one hit wonder. CaptainPrimo (talk) 08:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Until a couple of years ago, this list had a firm criteria and a great deal of contributions. I have much more faith in that version of the article than from the whitewashed version we see now. But a few legitimate entries upset some people and they merged much of that content out of existence, causing the mess you see today; well sourced by divergent sources but horribly incomplete and random. We know what worked and blew it up. Trackinfo (talk) 09:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed this is a right mess. It seems to be driven by some guys trying to promote their vapid books. A one hit wonder is a band that never really went anywhere, usually only lasted a few years, and scored a serious hit, like top ten. That is where the word "wonder" fits in. It is a wonder they got a hit. It is not a "wonder" that Roger Daltrey "only had one hit that decade as a solo artist".
Roger Daltrey is not a one hit wonder, lol. Nor are XTC. The fact that there is no consensus definition of "one hit wonder" is a problem. The list could easily be split into subcategories though, like: 1960's
- obscure or flash in the pan bands with one hit (Monster Mash) (Ram Jam) legitimate careers that only saw one hit like (Janis Ian). To me she's not a "one hit wonder".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.69.174.194 (talk • contribs) 01:03, March 12, 2019 (UTC)
- Rather than every editor decide on their own what constitutes a "one-hit wonder" and devolving into constant edit wars over such nonsense, Wikipedia list articles must have both inclusion criteria (e.g. What makes someone "from New York"?) and, as appropriate, selection criteria (e.g. Which people from New York do we include at List of people from New York City?)
- The current inclusion criteria for this article is artists known primarily for one hit song in the United States, who are described as one-hit wonders by multiple reliable sources. You might have a different definition of "hit" (Top 40? Top 100? Genre/component charts?). You might disagree with using the "United States". You might disagree on a definition of "artist" (e.g. is Roger Daltrey an artist and the Who a different artist?). Whatever. Without consensus criteria, you can remove Daltrey three times a day and watch him come back as often as someone else wants to argue you are wrong.
- If you disagree with the current criteria, you will need to find objective criteria and build a consensus here. Previously, this article used a Byzantine system involving charts and a lot of original research. That was overturned in favor of the current criteria. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Soft Cell
Frank Zappa
Devo
Sugar Hill Gang
Nazerath
Dexys Midnight Runners
A-ha
Twisted Sister
Nena
Talk Talk
Simple Minds
Harold Faltermeyer
The Outfield
XTC
Sinead O’Connor
Billy Ray Cyrus
The Proclaimers
4 Non Blondes
The Breeders
Aqua
Fiona Aple
Fountains of Wayne
This is not an objective criteria or complete list at but all of these bands have more than 2 other songs with 1,000,000 Spotify views and a few of them have more popular songs or songs with 2/3rds the number of listens as their "one hit wonder." Others like Fiona Apple, Sugar Hill Gang, Frank Zappa are considered to be influential musicians with dedicated fanbases and are certainly not one hit wonders.
Jackbudington (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC) Jack Budington
- The current inclusion criteria for this article is artists known primarily for one hit song in the United States, who are described as one-hit wonders by multiple reliable sources. If you disagree with the current criteria, you will need to find objective criteria and build a consensus here. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- The list was previously based on objective criteria. Now it's based on what people writing clickbait articles hastly cobble together. CaptainPrimo (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
The equivalent UK list uses a criteria of only including artists that only had a single song that charted and that song charted at number one. For me, that's a vastly more credible criteria than the currently used one - which is based purely on the source's view of what was a hit and what wasn't. An example of the problems the current criteria has is that Lovefool by The Cardigans is listed after it peaked at nine (on the alternative chart), despite having My Favourite Game peaking at sixteen (alt. chart), while We No Speak Americano by Yolanda Be Cool and DCUP peaked at twenty-one (dance club chart) - implying that My Favourite Game was also a hit, and Lovefool shouldn't be listed as a one-hit wonder. (Also, the source for We No Speak Americano is based in the UK and is probably referring to the song being a one-hit wonder in a UK context, not US).
I'd move that that only songs that peaked at ten, or above, on any Billboard chart and that artist didn't have another song in the top fifty of any Billboard chart should be listed. Thoughts about this? Clyde1998 (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- The current inclusion criteria works quite well, as we now have multiple sources to back each entry. Before this, an artist could get listed even if they were never described in the literature as a one-hit wonder. I don't think rolling back the criteria is a good idea. Binksternet (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- There was the most conclusive source the Billboard Top 40 to back each entry under the previous criteria. Now you are just using sources that have no real credentials to decide what is a hit or not and are just writing clickbait articles. CaptainPrimo (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is based on what independent reliable sources say. Independent reliable sources saying it is a "one hit wonder" is verifiable. Choosing one or more charts, deciding whether particular artists/groups are the same over time, etc. and applying those criteria based on various charts is synthesis. Is Jefferson Airplane = Jefferson Starship = Starship = KBC Band? Is The Buggles = Yes? Is a country chart hit a "hit" or is it the hot 100 or just the top 40? Is USA for Africa a one hit wonder? ALL of these questions are answered one easy way: If independent reliable sources say it is a one hit wonder, it is verifiably a one hit wonder. If several editors decide, it's original research. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- um, I'm pretty sure the article was previously sourced from Wayne Jancik of Billboard's book about one hit wonders. It wasn't based on editors going through the charts and finding artists who only had one hit. That was only done for the 1990s and 2000s. CaptainPrimo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- I have 2 editions of the book so that should constitute 2 reliable sources, shouldn't they? Every real one hit wonder till the early 90s is listed in there. And the source is someone representing the official arbitrator of American music charts - Billboard. CaptainPrimo (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- I rather doubt you'll find much support for taking two editions of one book to somehow be two sources. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I was being facetious about it qualifying as two sources. My relevant points were: 1) it's not original research - there's a reliable source that backs it up; and 2) and the source represents the official arbitrator of US chart status - Billboard. CaptainPrimo (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- The current consensus inclusion criteria (linked in the next topic) require entries be "called one-hit wonders in multiple reliable sources, with two sources cited for each entry." You can add entries that meet those criteria or work to change the consensus. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Trying to change the consensus is what I'm trying to do. What else can I do to make that happen? The issue here seems to have arisen in relation to the 2000s and 2010s listings. I'm not interested in those. I want the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s lists back and I think there's a reliable source that overcomes the issue of it being original research. CaptainPrimo (talk) 03:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- The current consensus merged the individual decade articles and established the multiple sources requirement.
- If I understand what you are saying, you want to reverse the merge and change the inclusion criteria for some of the decades. That seems unlikely to succeed, IMO. If you want to try, it would seem a new Request for Comments would be the way to go.
- Trying to change the consensus is what I'm trying to do. What else can I do to make that happen? The issue here seems to have arisen in relation to the 2000s and 2010s listings. I'm not interested in those. I want the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s lists back and I think there's a reliable source that overcomes the issue of it being original research. CaptainPrimo (talk) 03:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- The current consensus inclusion criteria (linked in the next topic) require entries be "called one-hit wonders in multiple reliable sources, with two sources cited for each entry." You can add entries that meet those criteria or work to change the consensus. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I was being facetious about it qualifying as two sources. My relevant points were: 1) it's not original research - there's a reliable source that backs it up; and 2) and the source represents the official arbitrator of US chart status - Billboard. CaptainPrimo (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- I rather doubt you'll find much support for taking two editions of one book to somehow be two sources. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
As the editor who did the decade split many years ago, I agree with the merge and with making the inclusion criteria more based on reliable sources’ subjective impressions than by any “objective” criteria which just ends up being inaccurate. Jimi Hendrix is not a one hit wonder. Vangelis is not a one hit wonder. Rush is not a one hit wonder. None of these artists are one-hit wonders because they are not described by reliable sources as being one-hit wonders (sometimes, these artists will be described as being “technically” one hit wonders in online journals of questionable reliability, which makes it clear that they actually are not seen or perceived as a one-hit wonder; for us to list someone as a one-hit wonder, they have to be described as being a one-hit wonder without adjectives invalidating the definition like “technically”). “One-hit wonder” is a pejorative subjective description of an artist, so for us to say someone is a “one-hit wonder” based on chart performance instead of based on what third party reliable sources say about the matter is to engage in original research.
I also think it would be reasonable to put next to artists, such as A-ha and Dead or Alive, who have had multiple top 40 singles but are on the list, a note that they, in fact, have had multiple top 40 singles. Samboy (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
What are the inclusion criteria?
@SummerPhDv2.0: Could you please inform me on the criteria for inclusion of songs on this page please? I might have missed it but I don't see any specific criteria. Also, I listed some songs that reached the top 10 but they were removed, if it's only top 10 songs shouldn't they be listed as well? (2001:8003:4E6E:8700:F1B4:8019:7F29:AA9A (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC))
- Please see Talk:List_of_2010s_one-hit_wonders_in_the_United_States#Inclusion_criteria, reaffirmed at Talk:List_of_one-hit_wonders_in_the_United_States#Should_this_list_still_exist_since_the_criteria_for_addition_is_arbitrary?. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
RFC on returning the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s portions to be based on Top 40 placement
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
One hit wonder is not a neutral term and kind of offensive. I don't think Wikipedia should be labeling artists as such in an article. If Wikipedia has to have such an article however it should be based on on objective standard. Wayne Jancik is someone who has devoted himself to the study of the phenomena and has come up with a concrete definition that has been sanctioned by being published by Billboard the official arbiter of American pop music charts. In America placing on the Top 40 is widely considered the defining quality of being a hit. It is not based on how much a song is remember by a particular audience which varies based on the musical interests of the audience in question anyways. I for one know and love a lot of songs by the artists currently listed on this page. I can overlook their inclusion if these songs are unknown by a significant enough number of people as calculated by their failure to place on the Top 40. What annoys me though is artists like A Flock of Seagulls and a-ha being listed even while having multiple songs that placed on the Top 40 and are still listened to by a lot of people are included.
A major argument against the Top 40 criteria was that this constitutes original research. Since Jancik's series of books list every artist to place in the Top 40 up to about 1992 it wouldn't be original research to list the one hit wonders of the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s as represented by objective data. These eras were free of complications like artists without physical releases not placing on the charts, artists being featured on tracks of others that become hits (as has become common since the 2000s) and the like - so not a lot of complications would arise from this. The Top 40 was indisputably the metric to judge what constitutes a hit in this period. CaptainPrimo (talk) 06:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep together - There are (and should be) a variety of sources used. We are using one set of criteria for all decades, rather than changing criteria as one source disappears.
- Billboard certainly gets a lot of attention. They also publish a number of charts. Various authors, connected to Billboard or not figure "one hit wonder" in various ways, which may or may not be based on just the Top 40 chart, such that (for example) a country artist who has never charted on the Top 40 might be considered a "one hit wonder" based on a popular country song which may have hit Billboard's country chart, but not the Top 40. Another author might not consider them a one hit wonder if they had a second single that showed up in the top 200. We are not in a position to choose one method over another. Wikipedia is intended to document "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". WP:NPOV That an is author is connected with Billboard and that publication widely used does not make that author, that publication and one of their charts the only opinion.
- One author might (for example) consider Jefferson Airplane, Jefferson Starship, Starship, KBC Band, Grace Slick, etc. to be ten or so different acts. Others might lump some together and count others separately.
- Yes, choosing one set of criteria over another is original research, especially if we cook up that list of criteria ourselves. That's why we don't have, for example, List of world leaders under 5'4" tall or List of short world leaders. Applying one person/publication/group's criteria based on other sources would further be synthesis.
- No, using statements from independent reliable sources is not original research. Source do research, Wikipedia does not. When independent reliable sources say that Battlefield Earth is possibly the worst film ever made, we say that.
- Yes, you have found a source. It is not the only source, and certainly not to the point that we elevate it above all others and use it to define the topic for some decades and not others. If the Oscars had been discontinued in the 1980s, we would not have lists of the best films for each decade through the 1980s based solely on the Oscars and completely different criteria picking up in 1990. (We do, however, have lists of Oscar winners and lists of films considered to be the best ever, of course.) - SummerPhDv2.0 13:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Well if that's the case the article should make note of when reliable sources differ from the assessment being made. No reliable source is going go argue that Battlefield Earth is not the worst movie ever but there are many reliable sources that would indicate many of the artists listed here had more than one hit. If that is not made clear the article is clearly favoring certain sources over the other and violating npov. Also: "If two reliable sources offer contradicting information on a subject and none of them can be demonstrated unreliable, then an article should cite both." CaptainPrimo (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- You feel it is an empirical fact whether or not a song was a "hit"; sources use varying definitions. You feel an artist with two "hits" is empirically not a "one hit wonder"; sources disagree. This article is not "Musical acts who reached the Billboard Top 40 chart with only one song" "One hit wonder" -- with varying definitions -- is a notable concept. The empirical idea -- with a strictly controlled definition -- is not. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- whether sources use various definitions or not this article makes no distinction. Looking at this article there's no indication that sources disagree outside of the introduction. It just lists a bunch of artists under the blanket label of one hit wonder. You make the argument that it's a fluid concept and completely gloss over the fact in the article just listing them all with no distinction. You can't argue nuance and not show it anywhere in the main portions of the article. Even the films considered the worst or best strive to explain the reasoning for the inclusions. This article is completely lacking any encyclopedic value as it stands now. CaptainPrimo (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- You feel it is an empirical fact whether or not a song was a "hit"; sources use varying definitions. You feel an artist with two "hits" is empirically not a "one hit wonder"; sources disagree. This article is not "Musical acts who reached the Billboard Top 40 chart with only one song" "One hit wonder" -- with varying definitions -- is a notable concept. The empirical idea -- with a strictly controlled definition -- is not. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- No split of 1950s through 1980s away from later listings. Keep the current inclusion criteria as multiple sources required per entry, confirming that the media has used the term "one-hit wonder" with regard to an artist charting in the United States. Binksternet (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- what if the multiple sources contradict each other? Why is only one of their assertions being valued and also why are other reliable sources that contradict their assertion being ignored? CaptainPrimo (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Should we only list songs/bands who broke the top 40 of the Billboard hot 100 list?
While I agree that we shouldn’t use “number of songs that made top 40 on the Billboard Hot 100” as a hard and fast determiner of what constitutes a one hit wonder (Jimi Hendrix is not a one-hit-wonder, but Dead or Alive is a one hit wonder band), one issue I am seeing in the list is the number of British or regional one hit wonders which never broke the top 40 in the US: Toto Coelo, that Shiny Shiny song, to name just two 1980s examples which were only top 40 in the UK; here in the US they were either MTV hits or were mainly played on alternative music stations. That in mind, would it be reasonable to remove songs from this list which never made the US Billboard top 40? It can sometimes be hard to tell, without grabbing a lot of context, if a given reference is talking about the US or UK when they discuss a song being a 1-hit-wonder, so a number of UK-only hits are on the list. Samboy (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- The inclusion criteria, based on two reliable sources per entry, should suffice. The sources must describe the song or the band in the context of American viewpoints. Binksternet (talk) 04:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed, but we do need to remove entries for an unrelated reason: A lot of entries are relying on a forum posting, which is, as per Wikipedia policy, not a reliable source. I agree to not remove entries just because they were never US top 40 hits and agree that would be original research, but we also must make sure we are using reliable sources when claiming a song is a “one hit wonder”. A forum post does not cut it. Samboy (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Is hotpopsongs.com a reliable source?
I notice that hotpopsongs.com is used to list a number of entries in the article, but I question whether this web site is a reliable source or a source appropriate to use for US one-hit wonders:
- They only list artists and titles of songs, without bothering to do even a short one-paragraph write up about the artist (much less let us know why they listed the artist)
- They don’t let us know if they have a US or international viewpoint (I suspect a US viewpoint, since they mention Ultravox, who had multiple international hits but only one US song make the Billboard Hot 100)
- Their Alexa ranking is well over 1,500,000 (i.e. there are over 1,500,000 websites with a better Alexa rating).
The site appears to be as a personal website, which is not reliable as per WP:RSSELF. Samboy (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
InThe00s.com is not a reliable source
We use a forum posting at InThe00s.com for about 32 entries, but this is a forum posting (as is obvious when viewing the forum version of the same posting). As a general rule, we do not consider forum postings reliable, as per WP:UGC.
I understand it can be hard to find good reliable sources which say “XXX was a one hit wonder”, but I think the list in the article is too long and we should be more careful about which sources we use before listing an artist here. Also, there is a WP:BLP concern, since I’m sure a lot of these artists would consider it contentious to be seen as a “one hit wonder”. Samboy (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I have removed all of the artists from the list that needed that unreliable source to be considered a one-hit wonder until we can come up with a better source. Some obviously aren’t, such as Frank Zappa (Frank Zappa is not remembered for “Valley Girls”, I assure you).
Going over the list, some of the elements do not come off as one hit wonders:
- Split Enz: “One Step Ahead” was a big MTV hit, and the song I remember them for
- Frank Zappa: This guy was a cultural phenomenon in the 1960s and 1970s, not a 1980s one-hit wonder.
- Haysi Fantayzee: They were a one-hit wonder in the UK. Here, you had to be listening to special “alternative” radio stations to even know who they were.
- Band Aid: This was a one-off supergroup collaboration, which does not fit the general definition of “one hit wonder”.
- USA For Africa: Again, a one-off supergroup collaboration.
- Jan Hammer: He was a soundtrack maker who happened to make his “Miami Vice” theme a hit single
- Harold Faltermeyer: This guy was a big time sound engineer, synthesizer wizard, and producer who did a lot more than Axel F (he also helped make some of Moroder’s big hits like “The Chase”).
Here are all of the removed entries for review:
These entries have been removed
|
|---|
|
* [[Rodney Crowell]] – "[[Ashes by Now]]" (1980)<ref name=inthe00s/><ref>{{cite web |title=1980 One Hit Wonder List |url=http://www.onehitwondercenter.com/80s.htm|website=OneHitWonderCenter.com |accessdate=December 20, 2018}}</ref> * [[Robin Lane and the Chartbusters]] – "When Things Go Wrong" (1980)<ref name=inthe00s/><ref name=1980hotpopsongs>{{cite web |title=1980 One Hit Wonders & Artists Known For One Song |url=https://hotpopsongs.com/1980-one-hit-wonders-artists-known-one-song/ |website=HotPopsongs.com |accessdate=November 10, 2018}}</ref> * [[Split Enz]] – "[[I Got You (Split Enz song)|I Got You]]" (1980)<ref name=inthe00s/><ref name=1980hotpopsongs/> * [[The Producers (American band)|The Producers]] – "What She Does To Me" (1981)<ref name=inthe00s/><ref name=1981HotPopSongs>{{cite web|url=https://hotpopsongs.com/1981-one-hit-wonders-artists-known-one-song/|title=1981 One Hit Wonders & Artists Known For One Song|website=HotPopSongs.com|accessdate=May 19, 2019}}</ref> * [[Buckner and Garcia]] – "[[Pac-Man Fever (song)|Pac-Man Fever]]" (1981){{sfn|Rahsheeda|2013}}<!-- Let me find a *reliable* ref that these guys were one hit wonders --><ref name=thegreat80s>{{cite web|url=https://www.thegreat80s.com/Song-List-80s-One-Hit-Wonders.html|title=80s Song Lists – 80s One Hit Wonders|website=Thegreat80s.com|accessdate=December 26, 2018}}</ref> * [[Frank Zappa]] – "[[Valley Girl (song)|Valley Girl]]" (1982){{sfn|Greenblatt|2009}}<ref name=inthe00s/> * [[Tane Cain]] – "Holdin' On" (1982)<ref name=inthe00s/><ref name=1982HotPopSongs>{{cite web |title=1982 One Hit Wonders & Artists Known For One Song |url=https://hotpopsongs.com/1982-one-hit-wonders-artists-known-one-song/ |website=HotPopsongs.com |accessdate=February 9, 2019}}</ref> * [[Haysi Fantayzee]] – "[[Shiny Shiny]]" (1983)<ref name=inthe00s/><ref name=1983HotPopSongs>{{cite web |title=1983 One Hit Wonders & Artists Known For One Song |url=https://hotpopsongs.com/1983-one-hit-wonders-artists-known-one-song/ |website=HotPopsongs.com |accessdate=November 25, 2018}}</ref> * [[The Weather Girls]] – "[[It's Raining Men]]" (1983){{sfn|Rahsheeda|2013}}<!-- Let's find a reliable source these ladies were a one-hit wonder --> * [[Face to Face (New Wave band)|Face to Face]] – "[[10-9-8]]" (1984)<ref name=inthe00s/><ref name=1984HotPopSongs/> * [[Autograph (American band)|Autograph]] – "[[Turn Up the Radio (Autograph song)|Turn Up the Radio]]" (1984)<ref name=thegreat80s/><ref name=inthe00s/><ref name=WDHAFM/> * [[Nik Kershaw]] – "[[Wouldn't It Be Good]]" (1984){{sfn|Rahsheeda|2013}}<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://rtt80s.com/2016/03/09/one-hit-wonders-nik-kershaw/|title=One Hit Wonder of the 80's: 1984 – Nik Kershaw|website=Rtt80s.com|date=March 9, 2016|accessdate=November 6, 2018}}</ref><ref name=inthe00s/> * [[Band Aid (band)|Band Aid]] – "[[Do They Know Its Christmas?]]" (1984)<ref name=inthe00s/><ref name=1984HotPopSongs>{{cite web |title=1984 One Hit Wonders & Artists Known For One Song |url=https://hotpopsongs.com/1984-one-hit-wonders-artists-known-one-song/ |website=HotPopsongs.com |accessdate=December 20, 2018}}</ref> * [[Maria Vidal]] – "Body Rock" (1984)<ref name=inthe00s>{{cite web |title=Chart Action: Billboard's One Hit Wonders of the 80's |url=http://www.inthe00s.com/archive/inthe80s/smf/1126545752.shtml |website=Inthe00s.com |date=September 12, 2005 |accessdate=November 6, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=One hit wonder: Maria Vidal |url=http://www.guiltypleasures.co.uk/london/one-hit-wonder-maria-vidal |website=Guiltypleasures.co.uk |accessdate=November 8, 2018 |date=October 1, 2010}}</ref> * [[Laid Back]] – "[[White Horse (Laid Back song)|White Horse]]" (1984)<ref name=inthe00s/><ref name=1984HotPopSongs/> * [[Cock Robin (band)|Cock Robin]] – "When Your Heart Is Weak" (1985)<ref name=inthe00s/><ref name=1985HotPopSongs/> * [[USA for Africa]] – "[[We Are the World]]" (1985)<ref name=inthe00s/><ref name=1985HotPopSongs/> * [[Jan Hammer]] – "[[Miami Vice Theme]]" (1985)<ref name=inthe00s/><ref name=1985HotPopSongs>{{cite web |title=1985 One Hit Wonders & Artists Known For One Song |url=https://hotpopsongs.com/1985-one-hit-wonders-artists-known-one-song/ |website=HotPopsongs.com |accessdate=December 20, 2018}}</ref> * [[Harold Faltermeyer]] – "[[Axel F]]" (1985){{sfn|Rahsheeda|2013}}<ref name=inthe00s/> * [[Billy Crystal]] – "You Look Marvelous" (1985)<ref name=inthe00s/><ref name=actors/> * [[Vitamin Z]] – "[[Burning Flame (song)|Burning Flame]]" (1985)<ref name=inthe00s/><ref>{{cite web |title=Vitamin Z the One Hit Wonder |url=http://www.articlesweb.org/news/vitamin-z-the-one-hit-wonder |website=Articlesweb.org |date=September 18, 2012 |accessdate=November 6, 2018}}</ref> * [[Trans X]] – "[[Living on Video]]" (1986)<ref name=inthe00s/><ref name=1986HotPopSongs>{{cite web |title=1986 One Hit Wonders & Artists Known For One Song |url=https://hotpopsongs.com/1986-one-hit-wonders-artists-known-one-song/ |website=HotPopsongs.com |accessdate=December 20, 2018}}</ref> * [[Boys Don't Cry (band)|Boys Don't Cry]] – "[[I Wanna Be a Cowboy]]" (1986)<ref name=inthe00s/><ref name=1986HotPopSongs/> * [[Paul Lekakis]] – "[[Boom Boom (Let's Go Back to My Room)]]" (1986){{sfn|Rahsheeda|2013}}<ref name=liketotally80s/><ref name=inthe00s/> * [[Platinum Blonde (band)|Platinum Blonde]] – "Somebody Somewhere" (1986)<ref name=inthe00s/><ref name=1986HotPopSongs/> * [[MARRS]] – "[[Pump Up the Volume (song)|Pump Up the Volume]]" (1987)<ref name=inthe00s/><ref name=1987HotPopSongs/>{{sfn|Mann|2003|p=81}} * [[Big Trouble (band)|Big Trouble]] – "[[Crazy World (Big Trouble song)|Crazy World]]" (1987)<ref name=1987HotPopSongs>{{cite web |title=1987 One Hit Wonders & Artists Known For One Song |url=https://hotpopsongs.com/1987-one-hit-wonders-artists-known-one-song/ |website=HotPopSongs.com |accessdate=November 6, 2018}}</ref><ref name=inthe00s/> * [[So (band)|So]] – "Are You Sure?" (1988)<ref name=inthe00s/><ref name=1988HotPopSongs/> * [[Romeo's Daughter]] – "[[Don't Break My Heart (Romeo's Daughter song)|Don't Break My Heart]]" (1988)<ref name=inthe00s/><ref name=1988HotPopSongs/> * [[Sheriff (band)|Sheriff]] – "[[When I'm with You]]" (1989)<ref name=inthe00s/><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://rtt80s.com/2012/05/02/one-hit-wonders-of-the-80s-1989-sheriff/|title=One hit wonders of the '80s: 1989 – Sheriff|website=Rtt80s.com|date=May 2, 2012|accessdate=May 19, 2019}}</ref> * [[Boys Club (band)|Boys Club]] – "[[I Remember Holding You]]" (1989)<ref name=inthe00s/><ref name=1989HotPopSongs/> * [[The Graces (band)|The Graces]] – "[[Lay Down Your Arms (The Graces song)|Lay Down Your Arms]]" (1989)<ref name=inthe00s/><ref name=1989HotPopSongs>{{cite web |title=1989 One Hit Wonders & Artists Known For One Song |url=https://hotpopsongs.com/1989-one-hit-wonders-artists-known-one-song/ |website=HotPopsongs.com |accessdate=December 20, 2018}}</ref> |
Samboy (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- I can see that there is some confusion. I requested to remove anything that was never put in the top 40; another editor pointed out (and I agree) that isn’t a good idea. The edit I made was not removing songs which never made the top 40; no the edit I made was one done in accordance with Wikipedia policy and consensus. We need to remove entries which do not have two reliable sources saying they are a one hit wonder (as per consensus on this page); I found about 32 entries which relied on a forum posting, which is not a reliable source, as per Wikipedia policy. The edit I made was not disruptive and it was done in policy, but I can see why there may be confusion, since I did suggest (but agree to not do) something else. Samboy (talk) 02:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Other artists to add
Evanescence-Bring me To Life Baauer- Haarlem Shake Ylvis- The Fox La Roux-Bulletproof Icona Pop- I Love It Owl City- Fireflies Capital Cities- Safe and Sound Portugal the Man- Feel it Still Rachel Platten - Fight Song The Kolors- Everytime Of Monsters and Men- Little Talks Passenger- Let Her Go The Lumineers- Hey Ho Orianthi- According to You Mo-Do- Eins Zwei Polizei System of A Down- Chop Suey! Edward Maya and Vika Jigulina- Stereo Love Foster the People- Pumped Up Kicks Bastille- Pompeii Ola- I'm In Love Alexandra Stan- Mr. Saxobeat fun- We Are Young The Wanted- Glad You Came Karmin- Brokenhearted Cash Out- Cashing Out Trinidad James- All Gold Everything Olly Murs- Troublemaker Foxes- Clarity Nate Ruess- Just Give Me A Reason Zach Sobiech- Clouds
Check this link for more:
https://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/the-top-40-one-hit-wonders-of-the-decade__27967/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.50.20.163 (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
NOTE: I based myself on songs that are one hit wonders in Italy, which Evanescence and SOAD are. I don't know which of those artists is a one hit wonder in the USA and which ones are not.
82.50.20.163 (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Another link
http://www.soulinstereo.com/2019/12/16-one-hit-wonders-of-the-2010s.html --82.50.20.163 (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
But the thing is, if articles contradict artists losted as one-hit wonders to not be one-hit wonders, then they can be removed from the list? Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
But given the flawed list, it means that as long as two reliable US point of view articles state an artist as a one-hit wonder, then anyone can add to the list with the proper sources. I do feel like there’s no criteria set for when artists don’t count as one-hot wonders though. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Poor articles from otherwise "reliable" sources
Regarding The Knack: This entry has been controversial and contentious. They may meet the technical inclusion criteria, but both supporting articles, in spite of the publications' big names, contain glaring errors that should have caught editors' attention at Rolling Stone, which has had more than its share of editorial scandals and fails, and at Forbes, which is a business magazine but hardly a music magazine. One calls Gloria Gaynor a one-hit wonder (far from it), and the other erroneously states that "The Knack had just one hit, but they made it count." In reality, they charted five hits from three albums, three of which reached the American Top 40, but "Good Girls Don't" is the main problem here. It was way too big of a hit (U.S. #11, Canada #1) and "My Sharona" fails to overshadow it. In spite of the opinions of popular culture, an additional Top 20 hit should be an absolute exclusion for a purported 'one-hit wonder,' and Top 40 is really where the bar should be, if only for the sake of intellectual honesty. Anyone who opens a book or looks at their discography will see that The Knack had a second U.S. hit that reached #11. Without a standard of Top 20 at the minimum, this list is silly and meaningless. The only other sources (apart from blogs, and another using only the Top 10 as their standard[2]) referring to them in the context of one-hit wonders qualify it with statements such as these: "This song is NOT a one-hit wonder."[3] "The Knack was technically a TWO-hit wonder."[4] Salon has them on their list of "Don't Call Them One-Hit Wonders."[5] - JGabbard (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- List articles, like this one, must have inclusion criteria lest they become indiscriminate collections of assorted editors' opinions. At present, this article requires two reliable sources that directly call the entry a "one-hit wonder".
- Forbes is a reliable source. Heck, it's certainly moreso than most of the sources here. Rolling Stone "has had more than its share of editorial scandals and fails"? Yeah, this is huge: Mysharonagate. The scandal!
- The criteria call for two reliable sources (which we have), not two reliable sources that we agree with.
- This talk page has been through various suggestions that we use synthesis based on one of several interpretations of "one-hit wonder" to make our own determinations. It sounds like that is what you really want. Yeah, we can go through that again. The same problems will come up. If you think you have something new to add, feel free. - SummerPhDv2.0 01:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Here is the "something new": Inclusion criteria are necessary, but we should also have some objective EXclusion criteria as well, or else we will have artists with a second hit reaching even higher than #11 and still claiming "one-hit wonder" status. A standard of "no other Top 40 hits" or at the very least, "no other Top 20 hits" would provide such an exclusion, a check to screen out subjective articles from ostensibly 'reliable' sources, or those containing factual errors such as the ones cited above. I have provided several sources which plainly state that The Knack should NOT be included in a list such as this. Thanks for expressing your opinion, but it's just that, one opinion. Now let's hear from others. - JGabbard (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- The synthesis you are proposing is, IMO, a violation of WP:SYN. I get that you don't like that a one-hit wonder can be an artist who is remembered for only one hit despite other successes. Reliable sources, however, disagree with you.
- You seem to want a List of artists who had one and only one top 20 (or maybe top 40) hits on the ''Billboard'' 'Top 40' chart. The sources we have here are clearly not discussing that list. Synthesizing criteria to make "one-hit wonder" mean that -- and only that -- doesn't seem to be encyclopedic. Past discussions have established "one-hit wonders" is a notable topic. If your topic is notable that might be a new article. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, you are close. I want a List of artists who had two top 20 hits (or maybe top 40) on the ''Billboard'' 'Top 40' chart. Artists like The Knack, Robbie Dupree and Quarterflash belong on a list like that, not lumped in here. - JGabbard (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- If you can find sufficient reliable sources for the article you would like to exist, you can create it. Until then, the established consensus here if to include entries that have two reliable sources. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Two-hit wonder is currently a redirect to One-hit wonder where there is no discussion of that term on the article. Two-hit wonder seems to be a valid term with a couple reliable sources listing examples. This might be what you are looking for; There could probably be a subsection of the one-hit wonder page about two-hit wonders, or its own page if need be. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 00:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- If you can find sufficient reliable sources for the article you would like to exist, you can create it. Until then, the established consensus here if to include entries that have two reliable sources. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, you are close. I want a List of artists who had two top 20 hits (or maybe top 40) on the ''Billboard'' 'Top 40' chart. Artists like The Knack, Robbie Dupree and Quarterflash belong on a list like that, not lumped in here. - JGabbard (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Here is the "something new": Inclusion criteria are necessary, but we should also have some objective EXclusion criteria as well, or else we will have artists with a second hit reaching even higher than #11 and still claiming "one-hit wonder" status. A standard of "no other Top 40 hits" or at the very least, "no other Top 20 hits" would provide such an exclusion, a check to screen out subjective articles from ostensibly 'reliable' sources, or those containing factual errors such as the ones cited above. I have provided several sources which plainly state that The Knack should NOT be included in a list such as this. Thanks for expressing your opinion, but it's just that, one opinion. Now let's hear from others. - JGabbard (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
One-hit Wonders with two top 20 hits in the US Billboard Hot 100
I think artists with songs that have at least two top 20 hits in the Billboard Hot 100 should automatically not be in the one-hit wonder list. Simple Minds had three top 20 hits but they are called as one-hit wonders because of Don't You (Forget About Me). But you can then say the same for Hanson with Mmmmbop and Vanilla Ice with Ice Ice Baby, since the other reliable articles we base as criteria here call them as such. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 13:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree! This whole list is a sham! It needs to be rewritten, reworked and reTHUNK (yeah I know it's not a word). Simple Minds actually had 4 big hits in the 80's. Then added two more in the 90's in USA. I'd be happy to help do this if anyone is on board with me. As for the 90's, that too, Vanilla Ice had a second GIANT hit which is still played on classic stations all over. I'm one of those chart buffs who wrote down the top 40 every week in a notebook which I still have today from 1980 to 1989, plus some from the 90's so I've all but memorized quite the bit of definition of one-hit wonder. Wikipedia should be talking TRUTHS here about music and one-hit wonders but clearly not many people here have chart knowledge. Let's rework this whole system please!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.25.152.182 (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- This is not a List of artists who had one and only one song in the top 20 of the ''Billboard Hot 100''. It's not a similar list limited to the top 40, top 100, etc. This is about "one-hit wonders".
- What is a "one-hit wonder"? Different people have different criteria. The sources explain, at the beginning of the article: "A one-hit wonder is a musical artist who is successful with one hit song, but without a comparable subsequent hit. The term may also be applied to an artist who is remembered for only one hit despite other successes."
- While we might or might not be able to find sources discussing artists who had only one top 20, 10, 40,100, etc. hit, this is not that article. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
But the thing is, if articles contradict artists losted as one-hit wonders to not be one-hit wonders, then they can be removed from the list? Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
But given the flawed list, it means that as long as two reliable US point of view articles state an artist as a one-hit wonder, then anyone can add to the list with the proper sources. I do feel like there’s no criteria set for when artists don’t count as one-hot wonders though. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- Attempting to establish criteria independent of the judgement of such sources establishes a single, monolithic definition based on editors' WP:OR.
- Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Wikipedia does not determine if NASA landed on the Moon, the Kinks are a one-hit wonder or "Battlefield Earth" is the worst film in history. Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say: NASA landed on the Moon, the Kinks have been called a one-hit wonder and "Battlefield Earth" has been called the worst film in history. - SummerPhDv2.0 04:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Problem is the so-called "sources" are not reliable at all. Which is why this really should be changed up a little bit. 98.25.152.182 (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- If you have identified sources used in this article that you feel do not meet the criteria outlined at Wikipedia:Reliable sources, please list them here and how you feel they do not match our criteria.
- Currently, the inclusion criteria here demand that two or more independent reliable sources directly state that it is a one-hit wonder. If you have alternative criteria that you'd like to propose, please do so. Keep in mind, however, that we cannot create criteria. We also cannot combine material from two or more sources to say something no one source says.
- This is a list of acts that independent reliable sources have called "one-hit wonders". That you disagree with some of those calls is immaterial. Independent reliable sources still have called them one-hit wonders. You are certainly free to decide that the Elton John Band is a one-hit wonder based on whatever criteria you feel should apply to that term. You cannot, however, apply that judgement here. - SummerPhDv2.0 04:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
The Elton John Band never had a top 100 hit... Elton John, the SOLO performer however is a 50plus hit wonder. :D I definitley have a lot of work to do here. But I'll leave the songs alone until I find the right material. I'm sure SUMMERphd agrees with this whole page along with us but you have to protect it which I understand. :) 98.25.152.182 (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- "Philadelphia Freedom", the Elton John Band's only single, went to #1 in the U.S. and Canada. In many of the definitions favored here, that would -- quite absurdly -- make it a "one-hit wonder". - SummerPhDv2.0 20:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Simple Minds as a one-hit wonder
I think we should remove Simple Minds from the list. This is because they had three top 20 hits, namely charting at #1, #3, and #14 in the Billboard Top 40. No other artist in this list seems to have had three top 20 hits. It is also worth noting that all three top 20 hits charted within the top 30 of both the Billboard rock charts and the Billboard dance charts. Also, the other source that calls them a one-hit wonder is an unknown city-based website callled Houston Press, no other reliable sources seem to refer to them as one-hit wonders. Also note that websites tend to state that Alive and Kicking was their follow-up hit to Don't You, so I believe they are not pure one-hit wonders like the others here where only one song is noted as a hit. They are not listed in VH1's greatest one-hit wonders. We did not list Hanson in the article though a few reliable sources cite them as one-hit wonders, so I think we should treat Simple Minds the same. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, Simple Minds had several charting songs. This article is not a list of groups with one-and-only-one song charting higher than a particular spot on a particular chart. The current inclusion criteria for this article call for two or more reliable sources calling the act a "one-hit wonder". We have that.
- Houston Press may be "an unknown city-based website" to you. That's immaterial. The question is whether or not it is a reliable source. Houston Press, established in 1989, is published by Voice Media Group, publishers of Denver Westword, Phoenix New Times, Dallas Observer, Miami New Times, and Broward New Times. It's certainly not the Houston Chronicle, but they clearly have editorial oversight. I'm not sure what portion of our criteria for reliable source you feel it fails.
- As the article says, "This list contains artists known primarily for one hit song in the United States, who are described as one-hit wonders by the media. ...some artists have been called a 'one-hit wonder' despite having other charting singles; in these cases, one signature song so overshadows the rest of the artist's discography that only that song remains familiar to later audiences." The article goes on to explain several of those cases, including Simple Minds. The article explains several definitions of the term. Simple Minds qualifies under some and not others.
- This article has inclusion criteria. Those criteria do not state "...except for Simple Minds". If you wish to change the inclusion criteria, you can certainly open a discussion, preferably outlining what you feel the criteria should be and where you got those criteria. If you're merely cooking up your own criteria, please state that so we can keep the conversation very brief... (Please look through talk history, we've been here before.) - SummerPhDv2.0 03:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I understand that. It’s just that it’s weird to have artists with top 5 hits be called one-hit wonders simply because one hit overshadowed the others. I guess that is how the inclusion criteria works such that chart history is not that big of a deal unlike the old page version. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 11:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Also I just find the article criteria to be a bit vague since we don’t have a set criteria on how articles can be reliable or unreliable. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Also another thing is if one reliable source says that an artist is not a one-hit wonder but another reliable source says otherwise, then we still count said artist as a one-hit wonder correct? For example I saw Hanson be called by Cosmopolitan as a one-hit wonder but Billboard said they’re not. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- We have set criteria for what qualifies as a reliable source. We use them in every one of the 6 million or so articles we have. It's explained in WP:RS. That's part of verifiability, one of the pillars of the project.
- If two or more reliable sources say it is a one-hit wonder, it is verifiably part of this list. If there are sources discussing one-hit wonders with material that you feel is relevant, add it, cite it and see what happens. - SummerPhDv2.0 19:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok understood. I guess the only question I have is how entries can be removed if sources dispute their one-hit wonder states Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- You are asking if we can take information from multiple reliable sources, decide it is "wrong" based on another source and remove it. That's a strange form of WP:SYN. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Noted. I was just thinking that a source like Billboard could be the most reliable source here and if let’s say Billboard says an artist listed is not a one-hit wonder, then maybe we could follow said Billboard source. But I understand that it seems we don’t hsve a source hierarchy as long as it’s a reliable source. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 04:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Again, the current inclusion criteria state two reliable sources. If you would like to suggest we amend the criteria to "two reliable sources...unless Billboard disagrees" you will need to suggest that and explain where you got the proposed new criterion. Beyond that, I don't see this conversation going anywhere. - SummerPhDv2.0 05:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Understood. All good now, so I understand that there is no reliability hierarchy for sources as all reliable sources are treated as such equally and we just need at least two reliable sources as stated before.Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Alive and Kicking has 60 million views on youtube, reached number 3 on the U.S. charts, but you claim that is not a hit song because some idiot said so on a webpage. Come on, get serious! Take Simple Minds off of this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gianni77 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- We do not say "Alive and Kicking" is not a hit song. The article says Simple Minds is a one-hot wonder. That your definition of one-hit-wonder doesn't agree is immaterial.
- Because ketchup is made from a fruit and sugar, I say it is a smoothie, not a condiment. Reliable sources say otherwise. I'm just some idiot saying it on a webpage and have to live with it. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree that Simple Minds should not be on this list. If it meets the article's criteria, then the criteria itself is ridiculous. Simple Minds are *objectively* not a one-hit wonder, and that's what people who come to view this article are looking for -- *actual* one-hit wonders not someone screwing up and thinking they are. Maybe we simply need another article of actual one hit wonders. I mean look at 1982 ... RUSH is on this list FFS. Jtjones66 (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Objectively, they meet someone's criteria for a "one hit wonder", but not yours. "A one-hit wonder is a musical artist who is successful with one hit song, but without a comparable subsequent hit. The term may also be applied to an artist who is remembered for only one hit despite other successes. This list contains artists known primarily for one hit song in the United States, who are described as one-hit wonders by the media."
- You might argue the "Elton John Band" is a one hit wonder ("Philadelphia Freedom" was their only single.) I might say that's crazy, because it's Elton John with other people. Or maybe it's the Buggles' "Video Killed the Radio Star" vs. a song by Yes after the two people who were the Buggles joined Yes. Or maybe you draw the line at top 40, while I count country hits or top 200. Maybe you insist it's just singles, but I look at albums too (e.g., Rush).
- We can cook up 500 different sets of criteria, all of which would be original research, or we can use verifiable information from reliable sources. Lists created the first way will give us a list a songs that fit your definition, which would be great material for a blog. Lists generated with objective, sourced criteria, OTOH, create a valid Wikipedia "List of..." article.
- If you feel you have better objective sourced criteria than what we are using, suggest those criteria. It's impossible to have an objective list based on "songs included must fit these criteria and not be Simple Minds or Rush". - SummerPhDv2.0 20:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
SummerPHD, I'm going to guess that you're the one that came up with the criteria because you defend it like a tiger, despite its objective silliness. Look at the Talk page's ToC, the number of times people are calling out the criteria for being ridiculous. That should tell you something. I came here with zero intention of causing trouble, I came here to look at *genuine* one-hit wonders, not the likes of Rush, Simple Minds etc, and was stupified at what I saw, like many others apparently. Jtjones66 (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Unsourced additions
After more than a dozen additions to the article without sources -- all of which have been reverted -- and the dynamic IP editor not responding to talk requests, the page is now edit protected.
If the anonymous editor now makes their way to this talk page, please read. You cannot add songs to the list which do not meet the established inclusion criteria, explained repeatedly on this page.
If you disagree with the criteria or do not understand, you will need to discuss the issue here.
We have temporarily blocked all anonymous edits to the article to get your attention. If you continue after the block ends, further steps will be more unpleasent, and no one really wants that. - SummerPhDv2.0 05:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@Summer we need to protect this page again Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Yasunori Mitsuda
Did "Purple Umbrella" from SahBabii feat. Yasunori Mitsuda chart in top 40? I know SahBabii is not a One Hit Wonder, but if "Purple Umbrella" charted, Mitsuda is technically a One Hit Wonder.--87.3.50.197 (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Should there be a separate list of one hit wonders that earned that spot as a feature or a collaboration with an artist(s) that isn't a one hit wonder?
I know that if a one-hit-wonder artist is only a feature or does not have a single because they collaborated with an artist that isn't one, then it can't be on the article. I am wondering if we can make a separate list for each decade which includes One-Hit Wonders as features/collaborator.
For example: Zedd ft. Foxes - Clarity (2012)
What do you guys think? Yay or nay?
Leenyyyaaa (talk) 04:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Leenyyyaaa
- The first question would be, are sources calling the song a one-hit wonder? The aren't for anything by Zedd, and Zedd is the named artist. Binksternet (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- What I mean is the artist being a one-hit-wonder as a feature/collaborator, not the song itself being a one-hit-wonder. Zedd isn't a one-hit-wonder, yes, but Foxes is. Also https://top40weekly.com/all-one-hit-wonders/ and https://spinditty.com/artists-bands/Favorite-One-Hit-Wonders-of-the-2010s say that Foxes is a one-hit-wonder. What I am proposing is maybe we can add a separate list of artists that earned the one-hit-wonder status by being a feature or a collaborator. Hope that helps!
Leenyyyaaa (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Leenyyyaaa Would Yasunori Mitsuda be there?--79.12.54.180 (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Twisted Sister, Hanson, The Proclaimers and Simple Minds are One-Hit Wonders?
Canadian here. Wasn't Twisted Sister's song I Wanna Rock, Hanson's song Where's the Love and Proclaimers song I'm on My Way also hits? (fun fact: I'm on My Way was used in Shrek)! Also, how in the HELL are Simple Mind a One-Hit Wonder when they CLEARLY had more hit songs like Promised You a Miracle and Alive and Kicking.
I won't argue Canadian bands like Men Without Hats and Len were one-hit wonders in the States as opposed to their home country where they had more hit songs, but do Twisted Sister, Hanson, The Proclaimers, and ESIPCALLY Simple Minds belong on the American list of One-Hit Wonders? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.51.247.121 (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- The inclusion criteria for this page call for independent reliable sources calling the act a "one hit wonder". All of those listed fit the bill. Carefully read the introductory paragraph of the article and you will perhaps see that it isn't always about having one-and-only-one hit (whatever your definition of a "hit" might be). - SummerPhDv2.0 17:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
iHeartRadio Playlist As A Source
For the Cutting Crew entry, an iHeartRadio playlist was used as one of the sources. I was thinking playlists from radio stations are not necessarily reliable sources since any radio station personality can call an artist a one-hit wonder? Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yikes. While I'd give some credibility to the network, nothing on that page says who wrote it, if there is any oversight, etc.
- Frankly, it looks like there are a number of questionable sources here. This one, toponehitwonders.com, seems to just be the work of an "obsessive music fan". Hardly what I'd call a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". - SummerPhDv2.0 23:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- List-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- List-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- List-Class American music articles
- Low-importance American music articles
- WikiProject American music articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- List-Class Record Charts articles
- Low-importance Record Charts articles
- WikiProject Record Charts articles
- List-Class List articles
- Low-importance List articles
- WikiProject Lists articles