Jump to content

Talk:List of one-hit wonders in the United States/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Untitled

The criteria for being on this list is that the artist must have exactly 1 song that charted on the Billboard Hot 100 with a rank of 1 to 40 inclusive. To determine if an artist meets the criteria, use Allmusic. The chart information can be found under Charts & Awards and Billboard Singles. As a rule of thumb, an artist should not be added to this list within a year of their first hit's entry on the Billboard Hot 100. Note also that Allmusic usually, but does not always, have comprehensive chart information. Joel Whitburn's books are the definitive source.

I believe the vfd message belongs on the article, not the talk page. The talk page gets deleted when there is a consensus to delete the article.
Also, when you withdraw your entry in vfd I believe you're suppose to remove the vfd meesage. But, this is the talk page and you probably didn't realize where you put the vfd message.
I've removed the notice. This is not listed on VfD. Kingturtle 18:16, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
What? This is not important. The "three charting albums" don't matter. this is singles! I mean, even though Radiohead are one of the biggest selling alternative bands of the 90's they've only had one top 40 hit. This doesn't matter. Doc Strange 14:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Turning Japanese

The page now lists "Turning Japanese" twice; once in the 1970's by "The Vapors" and once in the 1980's by "The Vapours". Someone should figure out which of the four possible combinations is correct, and then correct the page. -- Dominus 18:06, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Kingturtle has removed the 1980's "Vapours" listing, but did not offer any explanation as to why. Web search finds many documents that list the band as both "the Vapors" and "the Vapours", suggesting that the spelling may have varied between the U.S. and the U.K. releases; more research may be needed to be sure. Moreover, I find many web sites that give specific dates in the 1980's for the chart debut of "Turning Japanese". Whether the current version of the page (1970's "Vapors") is correct, I do not know; certainly the situation is muddy. -- Dominus 18:38, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
They were billed as "Vapors" in the UK. Unless they deliberately added the U for overseas releases precisely to create this sort of confusion, "Vapours" is probably just the result of Brits wrongly assuming the group used the regular UK spelling. Bonalaw 10:02, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely correct. It's Vapors, sans "U." The results for "the vapours" are about one-third and I'd surmise even that's probably because the "feeling feeble" use of that term. —Casey J. Morris

Gangsta's Paradise

I think "Gangsta's Paradise" should be removed from this list because Coolio had another big hit afterwards (called See you when we get there). -Cow 02:15, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Not true. "C U When I Get There" was not a hit. "Fantastic Voyage", however, was. So, he's a 2-hit wonder.

True - C U When You Get There was a hit, it went #12 on the Billboard Hot 100, was certifed Gold by the RIAA for sales of over 500,000, and was nominated for a Grammy. A top 20, Gold certifed, Grammy nominated single means a hit to me.

Coolio's Billboard Hot 100 Hits-

Fantastic Voyage No.3 (Platinum by RIAA) Gangsta's Paradise No.1 (X3 Platinum by RIAA) Too Hot No.24 1,2,3,4 (Sumthin' New) No.5 (also won a VMA for Best Rap Video) (Gold by RIAA) It's All The Way Love (Now) No.29 (Gold by RIAA) C U When U Get There No. 12 (Gold by RIAA)

6 Top 40 Singles, 4 of which made Top 20, 4 Gold or Platinum singles. How can he be called a one hit wonder?

===Better Than Ezra Is Not 1-Hit===Usually One hit wonders only have ONE hit

1995 Good Mainstream Rock Tracks 3 

1995  Good   Modern Rock Tracks 1 
1995  Good   The Billboard Hot 100 30 
1995  Good   Top 40 Mainstream 17 
1995  In the Blood   Mainstream Rock Tracks 6 
1995  In the Blood   Modern Rock Tracks 4 
1995  Rosealia   Modern Rock Tracks 24 
1995  Rosealia   The Billboard Hot 100 71 
1995  Rosealia   Top 40 Mainstream 39 
1996  King of New Orleans   Mainstream Rock Tracks 7 
1996  King of New Orleans   Modern Rock Tracks 5 
1997  Desperately Wanting   Adult Top 40 37 
1997  Desperately Wanting   Mainstream Rock Tracks 10 
1997  Desperately Wanting   Modern Rock Tracks 11 
1997  Desperately Wanting   The Billboard Hot 100 48 
1997  Desperately Wanting   Top 40 Mainstream 33 
1998  One More Murder   Modern Rock Tracks 32 
1999  At the Stars   Adult Top 40 23 
1999  At the Stars   Modern Rock Tracks 17 
1999  At the Stars   The Billboard Hot 100 78 
1999  At the Stars   Top 40 Mainstream 25 
1999  At the Stars   Top 40 Tracks 37 
2001  Extra Ordinary   Adult Top 40 13 
2001  Extra Ordinary   Modern Rock Tracks 35 
2002  Extra Ordinary   Top 40 Adult Recurrents 11

"Good" is their only top 40 song on the Hot 100. Rock Charts are irrelevant. The top 40 of the Hot 100 determines a "hit". If any Billboard chart was as good as any other, then none of these listed artists would be 1-hit wonders, as they've had hits on country charts, rap charts, dance charts, sales, maxi singles, etc, but not necessarily pop hits.

Moby Is 1-hit

Year 

 Single   
   
 Chart   
 Peak

1992 Drop a Beat Hot Dance Music/Club Play 6 

1992  Drop a Beat   Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales 38 
1992  Go   Hot Dance Music/Club Play 18 
1992  Go   Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales 16 
1993  Move (You Make Me Feel So Good)   Hot Dance Music/Club Play 1 
1993  Next Is the E   Hot Dance Music/Club Play 8 
1993  Next Is the E   Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales 39 
1995  Bring Back My Happiness   Hot Dance Music/Club Play 10 
1995  Bring Back My Happiness   Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales 39 
1995  Everytime You Touch Me   Hot Dance Music/Club Play 17 
1995  Everytime You Touch Me   Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales 26 
1997  James Bond Theme   Hot Dance Music/Club Play 1 
1999  Bodyrock   Hot Dance Music/Club Play 6 
1999  Bodyrock   Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales 17 
1999  Bodyrock   Modern Rock Tracks 26 
1999  Honey   Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales 49 
2000  Natural Blues   Hot Dance Music/Club Play 11 
2000  Natural Blues   Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales 6 
2000  Natural Blues   Modern Rock Tracks 24 
2000  Porcelain   Adult Top 40 24 
2000  Porcelain   Hot Dance Music/Club Play 14 
2000  Porcelain   Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales 38 
2000  Porcelain   Modern Rock Tracks 18 
2000  South Side   Canadian Singles Chart 3 
2001  South Side   Adult Top 40 8 
2001  South Side   Hot Dance Music/Club Play 16 
2001  South Side   Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales 4 
2001  South Side   Modern Rock Tracks 3 
2001  South Side   The Billboard Hot 100 14 
2001  South Side   Top 40 Adult Recurrents 1 
2001  South Side   Top 40 Mainstream 15 
2001  South Side   Top 40 Tracks 13 
2002  Extreme Ways   Hot Dance Music/Club Play 12 
2002  We Are All Made of Stars [Timo Maas Vocal Mix]   Hot Dance Music/Club Play 13 
2002  We Are All Made of Stars   Adult Top 40 32 
2002  We Are All Made of Stars   Hot Dance Music/Club Play 19 
2002  We Are All Made of Stars   Modern Rock Tracks 22 
2003  In This World   Hot Dance Music/Club Play 18

Chart information courtesy of Billboard.com © 2004 VNU eMedia, Inc. All rights reserved.

Verve Pipe is clearly 1-Hit

1996 Cup of Tea Mainstream Rock Tracks 35 

1996  Photograph   Mainstream Rock Tracks 17 
1996  Photograph   Modern Rock Tracks 6 
1997  Villains   Mainstream Rock Tracks 24 
1997  Villains   Modern Rock Tracks 22 
1997  The Freshmen   Adult Top 40 7 
1997  The Freshmen   Mainstream Rock Tracks 9 
1997  The Freshmen   Modern Rock Tracks 1 
1997  The Freshmen   The Billboard Hot 100 5 
1997  The Freshmen   Top 40 Adult Recurrents 1 
1997  The Freshmen   Top 40 Mainstream 7 
1999  Hero   Mainstream Rock Tracks 38 
1999  Hero   Modern Rock Tracks 17 
2001  Never Let You Down   Adult Top 40 20

Only one Hot 100 appearance.

Ditto for Fiona Apple

1996 Shadowboxer Modern Rock Tracks 34 

1997  Criminal   Adult Top 40 17 
1997  Criminal   Modern Rock Tracks 4 
1997  Criminal   The Billboard Hot 100 21 
1997  Criminal   Top 40 Mainstream 18 
1997  Sleep to Dream   Modern Rock Tracks 28 
1998  Shadowboxer   Adult Top 40 32 
1999  Fast as You Can   Modern Rock Tracks 20 
2000  Fast as You Can   Adult Top 40 29

Fountains Of Wayne--again, clear one-hit wonders as "Stacy's Mom" is only song to chart anywhere but rock radio

1997 Radiation Vibe Modern Rock Tracks 14 

1999  Denise   Modern Rock Tracks 34 
2003  Stacy's Mom   Modern Rock Tracks 31 
2004  Stacy's Mom   Adult Top 40 20 
2004  Stacy's Mom   Canadian Singles Chart 13 
2004  Stacy's Mom   The Billboard Hot 100 21 
2004  Stacy's Mom   Top 40 Adult Recurrents 12 
2004  Stacy's Mom   Top 40 Mainstream 3 
2004  Stacy's Mom   Top 40 Tracks 10

A3

2000 Woke up This Morning Adult Top 40 32

Chart information courtesy of Billboard.com © 2004 VNU eMedia, Inc. All rights reserved.

A 2000 date. Not 1999. The song was recorded some time in the 90's obviously because, like you said, Sopranos is from '99. But, like I already said, the song became a single and a hit in 2000! Please, do your research before removing people's hard work.

You have to hold all artists to the same standards

Look at what happens to some of the other "one-hit wonders" if we were going to count other charts:

Lorne Greene

1964 Ringo Adult Contemporary 1 

1964  Ringo   Country Singles 21 
1964  Ringo   Pop Singles 1 
1965  The Man   Pop Singles 72 
1966  Waco   Country Singles 50

Three hits.

Samantha Sang:

1978 Emotion Adult Contemporary 5 

1978   Emotion   Black Singles 42 
1978   Emotion   Pop Singles 3 
1978   You Keep Me Dancing   Pop Singles 56 
1979   In The Midnight Hour   Pop Singles 88

Three hits.

The Marcels:

1961 Blue Moon Black Singles 1 

1961  Blue Moon   Pop Singles 1 
1961  Heartaches   Black Singles 19 
1961  Heartaches   Pop Singles 7 
1961   Summertime   Pop Singles 78 
1962  My Melancholy Baby   Pop Singles 58

Four hits. This one is very questionable because they had two top ten pop hits. Why are they on this list?

Quiet Riot:

1983 Bang Your Head (Metal Health) Mainstream Rock 37 

1983  Cum On Feel The Noize   Mainstream Rock 7 
1983  Cum On Feel The Noize   Pop Singles 5 
1983  Slick Black Cadillac   Mainstream Rock 32 
1984  Cum on Feel the Noize   The Billboard Hot 100 20 
1984  Mama Weer All Crazee Now   The Billboard Hot 100 51 
1984  Metal Health   The Billboard Hot 100 31

Five hits. Again questionable because they had a pop #5 and #31.

Meat Puppets:

1991 Sam Modern Rock Tracks 13 

1994  Backwater   Mainstream Rock Tracks 2 
1994  Backwater   Modern Rock Tracks 11 
1994  Backwater   The Billboard Hot 100 47 
1994  Backwater   Top 40 Mainstream 31 
1994  We Don't Exist   Mainstream Rock Tracks 28 
1995  Scum   Mainstream Rock Tracks 20 
1995  Scum   Modern Rock Tracks 23

Four rock hits. But only one of them was a hit hit.

Aqua:

1997 Barbie Girl Canadian Singles Chart 7 

1997  Barbie Girl   Hot Dance Music/Club Play 21 
1997  Barbie Girl   The Billboard Hot 100 7 
1998  Lollipop (Candyman)   The Billboard Hot 100 23 
1998  Turn Back Time   Top 40 Mainstream 18 
2000  Cartoon Heroes   Canadian Singles Chart 2

Three legit pop hits (#7, #23, #18). Do they belong on this list?

Vanilla Ice:

1990 Ice Ice Baby Hot Dance Music/Club Play 28 

1990  Ice Ice Baby   Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales 6 
1990  Ice Ice Baby   Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks 6 
1990  Ice Ice Baby   Hot Rap Singles 1 
1990  Ice Ice Baby   The Billboard Hot 100 1 
1991  Cool as Ice (Everybody Get Loose)   The Billboard Hot 100 81 
1991  I Love You   The Billboard Hot 100 52 
1991  Play That Funky Music   Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales 42 
1991  Play That Funky Music   Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks 22 
1991  Play That Funky Music   Hot Rap Singles 7 
1991  Play That Funky Music   The Billboard Hot 100 4

Two legit hits (#1, #4)...does he belong?

Shawn Mullins:

1998 Lullaby Adult Top 40 1 

1998  Lullaby   Modern Rock Tracks 9 
1998  Lullaby   Top 40 Mainstream 1 
1998  Lullaby   Top 40 Tracks 1 
1999  Lullaby   The Billboard Hot 100 7 
1999  Lullaby   Top 40 Adult Recurrents 1 
1999  Shimmer   Adult Top 40 27 
2000  Everywhere I Go   Adult Top 40 13

Only one pop hit, despite three adult hits.

Daft Punk:

1997 Around the World Hot Dance Music/Club Play 1 

1997  Around the World   The Billboard Hot 100 61 
1997  Da Funk   Hot Dance Music/Club Play 1 
1998  Revolution 909   Hot Dance Music/Club Play 12 
2000  One More Time   Hot Dance Music/Club Play 1 
2001  Digital Love   Hot Dance Music/Club Play 9 
2001  One More Time   Canadian Singles Chart 1 
2001  One More Time   Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales 2 
2001  One More Time   Rhythmic Top 40 27 
2001  One More Time   The Billboard Hot 100 61 
2001  One More Time   Top 40 Mainstream 33 
2001  One More Time   Top 40 Tracks 32 
2002  Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger   Hot Dance Music/Club Play 3 
2004  Face to Face   Hot Dance Music/Club Play 1

A lot of club hits. One semi hit (#61), but only one real pop top 40 (#27).

Sonique:

2000 It Feels So Good Canadian Singles Chart 2 

2000  It Feels So Good   Hot Dance Music/Club Play 1 
2000  It Feels So Good   Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales 25 
2000  It Feels So Good   Latin Pop Airplay 25 
2000  It Feels So Good   Latin Tropical/Salsa Airplay 19 
2000  It Feels So Good   Rhythmic Top 40 9 
2000  It Feels So Good   The Billboard Hot 100 8 
2000  It Feels So Good   Top 40 Mainstream 5 
2000  It Feels So Good   Top 40 Tracks 5 
2000  Sky   Hot Dance Music/Club Play 10 
2000  Sky   Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales 40 
2001  New Year's Dub   Canadian Singles Chart 10

Three top 10 singles, but only one a top 40 American hit (#5).

So...see my point? We have to be uniform. If dance, country, R&B, and rap success don't make a song a "hit", then neither does rock success. Only Top 40 success.

Where to search?

Where can we do a quick search like those above? I don't notice Aha on the list. --Locarno 16:40, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A-ha aren't one-hit wonders as "The Sun Always Shines On TV" reached (from memory) #20. Bonalaw 10:04, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Modest Mouse

I'm taking Modest Mouse off the list, just because it seems a bit too early to declare them one-hit wonders, doesn't it? I mean, give 'em a couple months.

1. When did they hit the top 40? The Billboard Hot 100's Top 40, not the Top 40 created in your head or heard on your pop radio station. 2. Sign your posts. Doc Strange 17:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Vertical Horizon

I'm not a fan of the band but I do know they had a second single that appeared in the Billboard Hot 100. Remember the crappy song, "You're a God" which as high as number 23 in the "Billboard Hot 100."

My questioning of the ist in this article

This article is about One-hit wonders in the United States. Keep in mind about this, "The Ketchup Song" by Las Ketchup" was not an American hit. It was a "hit" in many European countries but have you heard this song regularly in 2002 on American pop radio stations? Do you hear Americans talking about the lame Macarena-ripoff Ketchup dance song in 2002? (the stupid hand motions. I only learned this stupid song from some European news outlet) I tried to search if even charted above the top 40 in Billboard Hot 100 and I can't find it even charted. If you someone can find proof that it charted above the top 40 in Billboard Hot 100 then I will reconsider.

I have another problem with this entry: ""United States of Whatever" by Liam Lynch." I know for sure this was not charted in the top 40 in the Billboard Hot 100. It was a hit in college and rock stations because of its funny lyrics and music video. It is not an one-hit wonder in my definition and Wikipedia's defintion: "A one-hit wonder is a Top 40 phenomenon, the combination of artist and song that scores big in the music industry with one smash hit, but is unable to repeat the achievement with another hit." It may appear in the Modern Rock charts in Billboard magazine but if guys are talking about "Top 40" then you're talking about Billboard Hot 100. The Hot 100 makes an impact for the music industry because it contains all the music that is being played on the radio (pop, hip-hop, country, etc.,) and sold. I don't mind if this stays even if the song didn't "scored big in the music industry", however Las Ketchup has to go. --Anonymous Cow 19:42, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Las Ketchup hata)

I agree. What search are people using to get those billboard numbers up top? We should use the same service to determine if Liam Lynch and Las Ketchups ever even charted on billboard. Billboard is the standard for this page right? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:26, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
Also, Kimberley Locke. I don't remember her charting. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:35, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

I'm getting my info from American Top 40. Liam Lynch's "United States of Whatever" didn't chart on AT 40, but Las Ketchup did. --KelisFan2K5 03:07, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I went to the webpage and couldn't find a historical search tool. Can you link directly to the tool that you are using? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:55, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Sisqó

Sisqó is a two-hit wonder: "Thong Song" hit US #3, but its follow-up, "Incomplete," hit US #1. Plus, he is lead singer of R&B group Dru Hill, which has had numerous Top 40 hits. -- b. Touch 05:22, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lisa Loeb and Meredith Brooks...

I am debating whether they should be listed here because Lisa Loeb had a few AC hits (Stay, Do You Sleep, and I Do), but only one Top 40 hit.

Meredith Brooks also had "What Would Happen", which was a minor mainstream hit and a top 10 Hot AC hit.

--KelisFan2K5 21:53, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lisa Loeb should definitely not be here.
I definitely lean to not including borderline cases here, but Meredith Brooks... I'd have to say we should include; we could mention "What Would Happen" in a parenthetical.
Speaking of Brooks, how about Chris Gaines... :) Samaritan 22:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, Meredith had a few hits: "Bitch" (1997, #1 Pop, #1 Hot AC); "What Would Happen" (1998, #23 Pop, #8 Hot AC); "I Need" (1998, #22 Hot AC); "Stop" (1998, #36 Hot AC); "Shine" (2004, #29 Hot AC). She had five Hot AC hits, but only two pop hits. (Just like Shawn Mullins that only had two mainstream hits ("Lullaby" and "Everywhere I Go"), but a few Hot AC hits.)
And what about Fiona Apple? Her only mainstream hit was "Criminal", but she's had a few hot and/or soft AC hits. --KelisFan2K5 01:38, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, you're right about Meredith Brooks. Hot AC is mainstream. I think we might be taking "one-hit wonders is a top 40 phenomenon" a bit too literally. (Besides that, it isn't, just.) And how about Duncan Sheik? Samaritan 01:48, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion?

OK- There has been a lot of debate about what lists are used, etc. I found this tool on the billboard website: [1]. If you put an artist's name in, select "THE BILLBOARD HOT 100" as the Single Chart Name, and make sure that "All Weeks" is selected, it will tell you if an artist charted more than once in the Top 100. Can we all agree that this is the tool that should be used? If so, I would also like to create a formal "criteria" section for this article. (The data seems to only go as far back as 1985, so this tool would only be able to resolve disputes more recent than that). --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:56, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

I thought that that was always the criteria for this list: the musical act had to have one (and only one) Top 40 hit single in the US. --b. Touch 19:39, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Was this ever explicitly stated anywhere? I was kind of confused myself. In either case, can we agree to use this tool to determine that status? Other people have quoted numbers, but it is hard to verify these numbers without the use of a standard tool. Unfortunately, "BILLBOARD HOT 100" search tool doesn't give rank so we can't narrow it down to top 40, but they do provide a "MAINSTREAM TOP 40" chart search (on that same page). The drawback to this tool is that it only seems to have data going back to 1993 or so. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:02, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
allmusic.com is ususally a good source of Billboard chart information. --b. Touch 21:19, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, I would prefer a tool that didn't require registration, but I'll try that site this weekend. Thanks. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:24, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, yeah; I forgot they require registration now. But it's free and I don't get any spam, so everything should be alright. --b. Touch 22:26, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm a social constructionist on this issue. If "Tiki and the Wikipedians" had three Billboard Top 40 hits, but web hits for +"tiki and the wikipedians" +"one-hit wonder" show they are often and by credible sources (preferably media, no flames, etc.) known as a one-hit wonder, they should be eligible for mention in an article on one-hit wonders. Samaritan 23:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is there a way to make the criteria of inclusion more noticeable? Some of the anons who are new to Wikipedia doesn't seem to understand to look at the talk page when adding new entries. Anyqueen 05:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kris Kross.

Kris Kross had 4 Top 40 hits [2]. I have taken them off the list. --b. Touch 22:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ashley Simpson...

Should she be considered a one-hit wonder? Ashlee Simpson's only had one song that made it in the Billboard Hot 100. But, "Pieces of Me" and "Shadow" made it onto both top-40 and hot AC charts. --KelisFan2K5 19:51, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

All three of her singles have made it on the Hot 100. She is certainly no one hit wonder—Shadow didn't do all that great compared to Pieces, but it was moderately successful. La La is still rising on the Hot 100 (89 this week). And she's been around for less than a year. Everyking 20:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Neither Shadow or Lala has made it to the Top 40, so Ashley Simpson is an OHW by our criteria. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:18, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
It's still too early to tell... Maybe she'll continue to have Hot AC hits (like Norah Jones or Sarah McLachlan), but only those three on mainstream charts. La La is still climbing Hot AC airplay charts. --KelisFan2K5 16:26, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's far too early. She'll probably have a fourth single, and then another album within a year. I strongly doubt Pieces of Me will be her only top 40 hit (on the Hot 100). Everyking 16:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
OK, so I've put 1 year as the moratorium on adding new artists in the criteria. Is everyone cool with that? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:52, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Kelis

Didn't Kelis have a top 40 hit with "Caught Out There"? I can't search allmusic, but billboard says it was on their Hot 100 for 11 weeks. Can someone with an allmusic account check? (I'll create one myself one of these days, but I can't right now). --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:33, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

No, it peaked at #54. --Carolaman 01:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know it only peaked at #55, not 54. :( --KelisFan2K5 03:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Macy Gray is clearly 1-Hit

Macy Gray's a clear one-hit wonder... she only had "I Try". But, it was from 1999, not 2000.

Actually, "Why Didn't You Call Me" hit #14 in 2000...so that disqualifies her. --b. Touch 22:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And, I don't think Lisa Loeb should be listed here (she also had a minor hit "Do You Sleep?").

Edit: I've removed Lisa Loeb. Also removed Amanda Marshall, because she had other hits. --KelisFan2K5 05:20, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There's too many in the 2000's...

I think that if someone has only one hit, and no more within 12 months, then they should be considered OHW's.

Anyways, that eliminates Lumidee, Jem, and Eamon. (I already removed Lumidee and Jem.) --KelisFan2K5 22:27, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also, don't list Skye Sweetnam, Jesse McCartney, Brie Larson, Lindsay Lohan, etc. because they've been around less than 12 months.

And, don't include any two-hit wonders, like t.A.T.u. (they had "All the Things She Said" and "Not Gonna Get Us").

--KelisFan2K5 22:50, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • I'd say that's way too liberal a criteron: a true one-hit wonder had one hit over the cours of an entire career. If an act still is active and has a major-label recording contract, they can't yet be one-hit wonders. Jgm 23:33, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Disagree, they should get a "grace period" but not be exempt forever just because they happen to still be active. Everyking 00:12, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • If they are "active" -- that is, still creating new music as opposed to performing their one hit on the oldies circuit -- and on a major label, they are almost by definition going to not be one-hit wonders; record labels don't keep acts on very long without success. I can see where some exceptions might be made in the case of a long-lived genre band with one fluke top-40 hit, but I think my approach is a good first cut. In any event, a 12-month criterion is absurd; in today's environment many groups don't even release an album every 12 months. Remember that a "one-hit wonder" is a band defined by their one hit -- why in the world should we be in a hurry to declare active acts with recent success as "one-hit wonders"?. Jgm 00:21, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • It's not such a big deal, it's easy to edit the page and remove artists as they get more hits. I think that a lot of people are far to defensive on this page about musical acts that they are fans of. I think that we should try to be objective as possible and just try to get an accurate list of artists who have had only one Top 40 hit; it doesn't necessarily have to have a negative connotation. However, as a rule of thumb, it's a good idea to wait a year after an artist's hit to declare them an OHW for the purposes of our list. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:27, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well now that I found the allmusic search tool and registered for an account I plugged all of the 2000 ones in, and found 30 that didn't really chart <= 40 or actually had two hits. Whew. I think that now that the criteria are clearly stated on the front page, people can check their entries before adding them, and we'll have fewer erroneous entries. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:00, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • I think 12 months isn't a long enough grace period before having the dubious honor of being a "One Hit Wonder". I think three years should be the minimum grace period. Samboy 11:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

One hit wonders by genre?

I think the article should be split into seperate articles by genre (urban, country, rock, pop, and anything else I'm missing).

I personally go by American Top 40 when determining a OHW. Of course, that only includes pop hits, but there's one-hit wonders in country, rock, urban, etc. --KelisFan2K5 21:53, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm personally not a big fan of including OHW's that only charted in the minor charts. Maybe you could create separate lists? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:45, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

USA For Africa?

Hmm, do you think that USA For Africa's inclusion is rather spurious? I mean... they only had one song in their entire recording history. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:35, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Since no one else has responded, let me frame it with this question. Should we add every single collaboration of artists that has landed a top 40 hit? What about Brandy and Monica; Christina Aguilera, Lil Kim, My and Pink; or the Various Artists that sang "What's Going On"? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 05:19, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
As the person who started this debate about getting up definite criteria that determine who is and isn't a "one-hit wonder", I have to say I'm glad to see that my original postings of the AllMusic charts up top have gotten people to be more objective about this list. When I quoted from the chart stats above, I generally considered the "Top 40 Tracks", "Top 40 Mainstream", and "Rhythmic Top 40" as being comparable to the Hot 100. There are several reasons why I did this, the most important one being that there was a period when songs could not chart on the Hot 100 unless they had a buyable single. According to this rule, a song like No Doubt's "Don't Speak", a multi-week number one across Top 40 pop formats, never even charted on the Hot 100--so, it'd be considered a non-hit. This is something we still need to work out, I think. But, in the meantime, use of AllMusic's stats is an excellent start for this list.
To answer your question, usually super-groups and collaborations are not considered to be one-hit-wonders, unless the collaboration of people actually formed a distinctive and real recording group. So, no USA For Africa, the "All-Star Tribute" that sang "What's Goin' On", the Jock Jam, and/or every possible combination and permutation of "featured" groups of artists/duets can not be counted as one-hit-wonders (e.g., "Twista featuring Kanye West and Jamie Foxx" is NOT a one-hit wonder with "Slow Jamz"; on the other hand, Jamie Foxx himself IS a one-hit wonder with "Slow Jamz", while Kanye and Twista [may] have had several hits).

Norah Jones

Should Norah Jones be listed here? She only had ONE Hot 100 appearance, but a couple of adult contemporary hits. --KelisFan2K5 03:33, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes. She meets the criteria for inclusion. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 05:19, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
Same for Lisa Loeb. Her only Hot 100 hit was "Stay (I Missed You)", but she had other AC hits ("Do You Sleep?", "Taffy", "Waiting for Wednesday", "I Do"). --KelisFan2K5 13:08, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Eamon and Leanne Womack

I just added them to the chart. Should they be listed?

"I Don't Want You Back" by Eamon charted on these charts:

  • Billboard Hot 100
  • Adult Top 40
  • Adult Contemporary
  • Top 40 Mainstream
  • Top 40 Adult Recurrents
  • Top 40 Mainstream Recurrents

where "I Hope You Dance" by Leanne Womack only charted on:

  • Billboard Hot 100
  • Adult Top 40
  • Adult Contemporary
  • Top 40 Adult Recurrents

So, should they be listed here or not? Are they notable enough to be listed? They only had one hit each on the Hot 100. (Leanne Womack also had AC hits, but they don't count according to the criteria for inclusion.) --KelisFan2K5 01:12, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they both count as one-hit wonders according to the criteria at the top of the article --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:18, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Liz Phair...

Should she be listed or here or not?

"Extraordinary" charted on the Modern Rock and Top 40 Mainstream charts, but did it chart on the Hot 100? If so, she belongs on Two-hit wonders in the United States. --KelisFan2K5 23:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Extraordinary did not chart, according to allmusic. Please see the instructions at the top of the article. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:18, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Twisted Sister

What about "I Wanna Rock"? This was a fairly big hit, and the video got lots of MTV airplay.

Peaked at 68. Please see instructions at the top of the page. They also had another hit that peaked at 53. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:18, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

is 1970 in the 1960s or 1970s?

I added the 1970 hit "Ride Captain Ride" by The Blues Image to the 1970s. Hopefully that's the right section. Perhaps we should change the headings to reflect an exact year range to avoid confusion. Gamaliel 01:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Decades are usually calculated as beginning in the zero year. At least that's true in the popular mindset. Everyking 01:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You can't call someone a one-hit wonder who's been around less than a year. Everyking 08:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you say "1970s" that means 1970-1979, inclusive. If you say "The 197th decade AD" then you mean 1971-1980, inclusive. There is no ambiguity if you say "1970s". --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:00, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)


Is Macy Gray 1999 or 2000?

I added Macy Gray into this list in the 1990-1999 section. Is one-hit wonder status determined by when they first debut on the charts (she debuted on the Hot 100 in 1999) or when they peaked (she peaked on the Hot 100 in 2000)? --KelisFan2K5 23:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think Macy should be listed in the 2000 section, since songs are usually listed by when they peaked. For example, Maroon 5's "Harder To Breathe" was sent to radio and released as a single in early 2002, but it did not end up charting (and peaking) on Billboard until 2003 or even possibly early 2004. Say it peaked in 2003, but showed up in various positions on various charts in 2002, 2003, and 2004; it'd be considered a "2003 Billboard hit".

Diesel

Could you consider them a one-hit wonder? They are usually listed on lists of one-hit wonders, but "Sausalito Summernights" never entered the Billboard Top 100. The song entered, then peaked, on the Mainstream Rock charts at #27, in 1981. --Carolaman 23:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since Diesel didn't chart on the Hot 100 (singles sales) or the Top 40 Mainstream (airplay) chart, no. They don't count as a one-hit wonder. --KelisFan2K5 20:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This is something I'm a little skeptical about. Does anyone else think we should alter the rules for such cases? What I mean by this is use the Hot 100/pop charts first and foremost, but if there's an artist who only had one top 40 hit on one of the genre charts, without even appearing elsewhere, does that also qualify as some sort of one-hit wonder? Or are these acts just "no-hit wonders"? Maybe there could be some different lists for differen genres?68.44.184.172 04:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Artists commonly considered one-hit...

Should there be a seperate list for them? I mean, Las Ketchup peaked at 53 on the Hot 100, but they are commonly considered OHW's.

Should we make a new article for artists commonly considered one-hit wonders, but actually didn't chart in the top 40 of the Hot 100? --KelisFan2K5 02:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No. If there are extremely notable cases for this, you may list them in the notable exceptions part of the criteria for inclusion, but the criteria is far too speculative for a list of any authority to be made. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:12, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Allmusic before 1983?

It seems to me like allmusic doesn't seem to carry billboard hot 100 information before 1983 or so. Have other people run into this issue too? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:10, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Look for Top 40 hits on the pop singles chart, which is basically the same thing as the Billboard Hot 100 chart, when looking for hits before 1983. --Carolaman 23:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I did when I analyzed the charts I posted above. However, this all begs the question: what do we make of the "Top 40 Mainstream", "Top 40 Tracks", "Top 40 Rhythmic", and "Adult Top 40" charts during the 80's and 90's, and of the "Pop 100" that has appeared recently? What The "Pop 100" is today greatly resembles the "Hot 100" of the early 80's through 1998, when it was compiled ONLY from the four "Top 40" singles charts that I mentioned above. Since 1998, country, rap, urban, R&B, latin, dance, and rock stations have been included in the Hot 100, making it "more competitive". It's harder for ANYONE to have a big hit today, especially the artists who receive their main support from one of the four "Top 40" charts that I mentioned. This also means that, on occasion, we'll see a non-hit (i.e., a song that hasn't received any support from the pop Top 40) that charts in the Top 40 of the Hot 100, based only on excessive support from one of the specific genres. This happens especially often with country and rap singles. Presently, a song called "Making Memories Of Us" by Keith Urban is #37 and rising on the Hot 100. Has anyone who listens to Top 40-geared radio ever even heard this song? Is this song really an American "hit"? Can we say Keith Urban has had ANY mainstream success in America? USUALLY, but not always, pop radio mimics the Hot 100, so big hits on other formats naturally "cross over"--but it's not the case with this song. Just some things to think about. Prior to the change in 1998, "Top 40 Tracks" (a compilation of mainstream top 40, rhythmic top 40, and adult top 40) was nearly identical to the Hot 100. Some say that the Top 40 Tracks chart is more representative of real, mainstream hits.

Compare the following:

Current top 40 of Pop 100:

1 1 13 Hollaback Girl, Gwen Stefani Interscope | 004435* 1 2 2 7 We Belong Together, Mariah Carey Island | IDJMG 2 3 3 8 Don't Phunk With My Heart, The Black Eyed Peas A&M | 004799* | Interscope 2 4 4 10 Behind These Hazel Eyes, Kelly Clarkson RCA | RMG 4 5 5 15 Switch, Will Smith Overbrook | Interscope 4 6 6 29 Since U Been Gone, Kelly Clarkson 2 RCA | RMG 1 7 7 26 Mr. Brightside, The Killers Island | IDJMG 5 8 12 11 Oh, Ciara Featuring Ludacris Sho'nuff-MusicLine/LaFace | 68177* | Zomba 8 9 8 23 Let Me Go, 3 Doors Down Republic/Universal | UMRG 8 10 9 9 Incomplete, Backstreet Boys Jive | Zomba 6 11 14 12 Just A Lil Bit, 50 Cent Shady/Aftermath | 004726* | Interscope 11 12 11 17 Lonely No More, Rob Thomas Melisma | Atlantic 6 13 13 19 Hate It Or Love It, The Game Featuring 50 Cent Aftermath/G-Unit | Interscope 9 14 10 16 Lonely, Akon SRC/Universal | 004541* | UMRG 3 15 15 19 Sugar (Gimme Some), Trick Daddy Featuring Ludacris, Lil' Kim & Cee-Lo Slip-N-Slide | Atlantic 13 16 23 7 Don't Cha, The Pussycat Dolls Featuring Busta Rhymes A&M | 004685 | Interscope 16 17 17 19 Scars, Papa Roach El Tonal | Geffen 17 18 20 21 Collide, Howie Day Epic 18 19 21 26 Disco Inferno, 50 Cent Shady/Aftermath | Interscope 7 20 22 17 Candy Shop, 50 Cent Featuring Olivia Shady/Aftermath | Interscope 2 21 26 32 1, 2 Step, Ciara Featuring Missy Elliott 2 Sho'nuff-MusicLine/LaFace | Zomba 1 22 18 29 Boulevard Of Broken Dreams, Green Day Reprise 1 23 19 28 Karma, Alicia Keys J | RMG 7 24 16 8 Feel Good Inc, Gorillaz/De La Soul Parlophone | Virgin 16 25 29 12 Baby I'm Back, Baby Bash Featuring Akon Latium/Universal | UMRG 25 26 25 27 Rich Girl, Gwen Stefani Featuring Eve Interscope 3 27 27 3 Errtime, Nelly Featuring Jung Tru & King Jacob Derrty/Universal | UMRG 27 28 32 18 You And Me, Lifehouse Geffen 23 29 33 13 Chariot, Gavin DeGraw J | RMG 29 30 28 9 Beverly Hills, Weezer Geffen 17 31 35 7 Untitled (How Can This Happen To Me?), Simple Plan Lava 31 32 37 7 Holiday, Green Day Reprise 26 33 24 21 Obsession (No Es Amor), Frankie J Featuring Baby Bash Columbia | 70386* 3 34 36 6 Speed Of Sound, Coldplay Capitol 14 35 31 30 Caught Up, Usher LaFace | Zomba 6 36 30 19 Goin' Crazy, Natalie Latium/Universal | UMRG 10 37 34 9 B.Y.O.B., System Of A Down American | Columbia 34 38 45 5 Listen To Your Heart, D.H.T. Robbins | 72116 38 39 44 11 Girlfight, Brooke Valentine Featuring Lil Jon & Big Boi Subliminal | 76601* | Virgin 39 40 60 27 Bless The Broken Road, Rascal Flatts Lyric Street 40

Current top 40 of Hot 100:

1 1 9 We Belong Together, Mariah Carey Island | IDJMG 1 2 2 11 Hollaback Girl, Gwen Stefani Interscope | 004435* 1 3 3 12 Oh, Ciara Featuring Ludacris Sho'nuff-MusicLine/LaFace | 68177* | Zomba 2 4 4 12 Just A Lil Bit, 50 Cent Shady/Aftermath | 004726* | Interscope 4 5 5 8 Don't Phunk With My Heart, The Black Eyed Peas A&M | 004799* | Interscope 5 6 8 8 Behind These Hazel Eyes, Kelly Clarkson RCA | RMG 6 7 6 18 Hate It Or Love It, The Game Featuring 50 Cent Aftermath/G-Unit | | Interscope 2 8 9 15 Switch, Will Smith Overbrook | Interscope 8 9 7 26 Since U Been Gone, Kelly Clarkson 2 RCA | | RMG 2 10 12 18 Mr. Brightside, The Killers Island | 004170* | IDJMG 10 11 10 17 Lonely No More, Rob Thomas Melisma | | Atlantic 6 12 11 15 Slow Down, Bobby Valentino DTP/Def Jam | 004294* | IDJMG 8 13 13 8 Incomplete, Backstreet Boys Jive | Zomba 13 14 15 19 Let Me Go, 3 Doors Down Republic/Universal | | UMRG 14 15 20 16 Wait (The Whisper Song), Ying Yang Twins ColliPark | 2521* | TVT 15 16 18 9 Grind With Me, Pretty Ricky Atlantic | 93711* 16 17 14 16 Lonely, Akon SRC/Universal | 004541* | UMRG 4 18 16 19 Candy Shop, 50 Cent Featuring Olivia Shady/Aftermath | | Interscope 1 19 36 6 Don't Cha, The Pussycat Dolls Featuring Busta Rhymes A&M | 004685 | Interscope 19 20 22 21 Sugar (Gimme Some), Trick Daddy Featuring Ludacris, Lil' Kim & Cee-Lo Slip-N-Slide | 93644* | Atlantic 20 21 29 6 Speed Of Sound, Coldplay Capitol 8 22 21 9 Beverly Hills, Weezer Geffen 13 23 19 29 Boulevard Of Broken Dreams, Green Day Reprise | 2 24 24 3 Errtime, Nelly Featuring Jung Tru & King Jacob Derrty/Universal | UMRG 24 25 23 15 Girlfight, Brooke Valentine Featuring Lil Jon & Big Boi Subliminal | 76601* | Virgin 23 26 26 18 Collide, Howie Day Epic | 26 27 32 10 Holiday, Green Day Reprise 19 28 17 3 Feel Good Inc, Gorillaz/De La Soul Parlophone | Virgin 17 29 30 16 Baby I'm Back, Baby Bash Featuring Akon Latium/Universal | 004367* | UMRG 29 30 33 17 You And Me, Lifehouse Geffen | 28 31 31 27 Disco Inferno, 50 Cent Shady/Aftermath | 004142* | Interscope 3 32 34 33 1, 2 Step, Ciara Featuring Missy Elliott 2 Sho'nuff-MusicLine/LaFace | 66687* | Zomba 2 33 39 18 Scars, Papa Roach El Tonal | | Geffen 33 34 38 13 I'm A Hustla, Cassidy Full Surface/J | 67588* | RMG 34 35 27 9 B.Y.O.B., System Of A Down American | Columbia 27 36 25 20 Obsession (No Es Amor), Frankie J Featuring Baby Bash Columbia | 70386* 3 37 42 8 Making Memories Of Us, Keith Urban Capitol (Nashville) 37 38 40 42 Breakaway, Kelly Clarkson 2 Walt Disney | | Hollywood 6 39 37 15 U Already Know, 112 Featuring Foxy Brown Def Soul | 004229* | IDJMG 33 40 43 34 Let Me Love You, Mario 3rd Street/J | 61888* | RMG 1


VERY similar, but not identical.

Other Charts

Should artistes who have not charted on the Top 40 of the Hot 100 but have one Top 40 hit on the other Billboard charts such as the R&B or Adult Contemporary be considered a one hit wonder?

Nope, but you MAY list them in the "Notable Exceptions" section. --KelisFan2K5 13:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Famous bands with large followings that technically only had one hit single

I think it is appropriate to remove very famous bands with large followings that technically only had one top 40 hit. In particular, I just removed Rush from the list because (undoubtably) a good number of their albums have made the top 100. Other people have removed Emerson, Lake, and Palmer and Nine Inch Nails for similar reasons. I think having more than one successful album can exclude the band/artist in question from the list.

There is also the issue of someone who was with a sucessful band who had only one solo hit (I think Lindsay Buckingham of Fleetwood Mac qualified, with his one 1979 solo hit "Trouble"). Samboy 11:29, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

You're throwing out the window any semblance of definition and impartiality that this list might have had, just because you don't like it that some of your favorite bands are, by definition, "one-hit wonders". As someone said on this page earlier, there's nothing condescending or disgraceful about inclusion on this list. I highly doubt a band like Radiohead SEEKS to have hits. Ditto with NIN. If these groups wanted hits, they'd be making formulaic music. Your opinion of their music or their popularity does not change the fact that they're one-hit wonders, insofar as that they've only had one pop hit. It is important that we keep this list well-defined. If not, we're just inviting all manner of people to edit this list subjectively, because they don't like hearing that a group that they might like is a "one-hit wonder". The only way we can ensure that this list has meaning, and is not biased in EITHER direction, is by using a set definition for "one-hit wonder" and STICKING TO IT. 68.44.184.172 04:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Correction: I am not proposing the removal of objective criteria. I am proposing revising the objective criteria by changing it to remove many bands which people do not consider "One Hit Wonders". "One Billboard top-40 single artists", perhaps, but that means something different than "One Hit Wonder". Samboy 23:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To support my argument, from the article One-hit wonder:

The term one-hit wonder does not, however, usually refer to performers who have had only limited chart success but whose importance spans beyond sales charts. Jimi Hendrix, Lou Reed, The Grateful Dead, Iggy Pop and Radiohead have each had only one song in the top 40 positions of Billboard Magazine’s list of most-played pop songs, yet none is considered a one-hit wonder because each has created other work that, while not as initially commercially successful, has had significance to popular music.
According to who? You're using your opinion of their music to justify "significance". I agree with you that these groups are generally not considered "one-hit wonders", because they've been critically successful, and critics don't demean what they like. But, by definition of "a hit song is anything that peaked between 40 and 1 on the Hot 100", these groups are "one-hit wonders". Maybe we can find a way to look at other factors in compiling this list, but we HAVE TO BE UNIFORM AND FAIR! 68.44.184.172 04:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am proposing a way of including other factors when compiling the list. In particular: "If a band has had more than three top 40 albums, we may take them off of the list". I'm not trying to make this list purely subjective; I'm trying to make the list more represent what one normally calls a "one hit wonder". Also see Talk:1990s_One-hit_wonders_in_the_United_States Samboy 23:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In light of this, I consider Moby someone who isn't a one-hit wonder. (Though I'll keep him on the list because I don't know how known he is outside the electroni music sub-culture. But most people know who Rush are) Samboy 11:56, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Most people who? I know who Rush is. I'm guessing you do. Many of my friends do, and my parents probably do. But...does the average American teen girl who listens to pop radio know who Rush is? Does my grandmother? Would a person who just listened to top 40 radio to find out about new music, ignoring critics, word-of-mouth, touring, or alum sales, know anything about Rush but their one hit? No. 68.44.184.172 04:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, "Tom Sawyer", "Subdivisions", and, to some extent "Big Money" got much more radio airplay than their top charting positions imply. "New World Man" (their one song that, in fact, hit the top 40) did not, and does not, get the classic rock airplay that, say, "Tom Sawyer" gets. Indeed, if Billboard based their top 40 in the 1980s on radio airplay instead of sales of 45 RPM singles (like they do now), Rush would not have the anomaly of only having only one song hit the billboard top 40 single chart. The only reason this happened is because people who listened to Rush bought albums, not singles. Rush songs got and still get plenty of airplay. I don't think there was ever anyone who knew there was a band named Rush only know them for "New World Man". See also Talk:1990s_One-hit_wonders_in_the_United_States Samboy 23:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
To add to the above, I have written up a section on bands who only had one hit but are not one-hit wonders (three or more top 40 albums), such as Rush, Jimi Hendrix, Grateful Dead, and Frank Zappa (thanks Carolaman, for catching that one). Frank Zappa is the most interesting case, because his one top-40 hit has many of the features of a one-hit wonder. Samboy 06:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I understand that Rush has MANY singles that have gone on to become recurrent hits at various radio formats, much as Bob Marley has. I understand the arbitrary issues, over the years, of sales vs airplay in compiling the Hot 100 chart. (See my comment above about No Doubt's "Don't Speak"--I don't think there's ANYONE out there who wouldn't consider that song a hit; it was huge on radio. But, because it didn't have a commercially-released single, it was ineligible to chart on the Hot 100. It's, according to Billboard rules, "not a hit".) As far as I'm concerned, we definitely need to take into consideration some other factors in putting together this list. I disagree strongly, however, that album sales should come into play with regard to single success. Weird Al Yankovic has had some pretty strong album sales over the years. Garth Brooks is one of the country's top-selling album artists. There are no-hit, in some cases no-name, rappers who sell massively due to underground support. I think, in the case of a band like Rush, it'd be more appropriate to take Hot 100 Airplay into consideration as reason why they are generally not labelled as one-hit-wonders. I also still strongly believe that we must consider songs to be "hits" if they reach the top 40 of the "Top 40 Tracks" or the "Pop 100" charts, even if they don't necessarily hit the top 40 of the Hot 100.68.44.184.172 04:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also, I think it's absurd not to include Frank Zappa as a one-hit wonder, as he's often thought of as something of a novelty act.68.44.184.172 04:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The fundamental argument here is one of semantics. Your internal semantic mapping of "one hit wonder" is different than my internal semantic mapping of "one hie wonder". In plain English, your definition of "one hit wonder" is different from my definition. My definition (actually, internal semantic mapping, if you want to be pedantic) of a "one hit wonder" is something like this:

A "one hit wonder" is an artist who had only one notable song, and was then forgotten, and who is only remembered for that one hit, and only remembered by people familiar with music from the one-hit-wonder's era.

That is not true though. Again, this is all very subjective. Who goes around polling people on these things? Some people may only remember "Wannabe" by the Spice Girls, but "2 Become 1", "Say You'll Be There", and a few others were hits too, just not to the same magnitude. People have mistaken ideas of who were one-hit wonders ALL the time, namely because the media (especially MTV and VH1) only seem to plug the one or two biggest hits by an artist. Watching "I Love The 90's", I'd have thought Spice Girls, Alanis, Hootie & the Blowfish, Hanson, Nirvana, etc, all were one-hit wonders. 68.44.184.172 04:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A one hit wonder is inevitably assosciated with their hit. This is a somewhat fuzzy meaning, and a stricter meaning is needed to minimize edit wars. However, the initial stricter meaning does not convey the essence of the above meaing:

A "one hit wonder" is someone who only had one top 40 Billboard hit

This is not a reasonable translation of the above definition of "one hit wonder". For example, what comes to mind when you think of "Jimi Hendrix"? You proably start thinking about his masterful guitar playing, his contributions to rock and roll, his untimely death...you're probably not thinking about his one song that happened to become a Billboard hit, "All along the watchtower". What comes to mind when you hear "That singer Tiffany" or "That band Men Without Hats"; in both cases, the one hit those two bands had ("I Think We're Alone Now" and "Safety Dance") comes to mind. It's a somewhat insulting term; it implies that the artist in question has made no contributions to music beyond their one hit.

That's not true though. That's the stigma and the bias that people may view it with, but it's not the true. It all comes back to the argument of mainstream success and popularity vs. artistry and individuality. Some artists are revered for their multitude of mainstream hits that everyone has heard, and others are more niche and are less widely known, but are much more widely respected among their niches. Billboard and "one hit wonder" status only measures commercial appeal at the time of the artist's single releases. It's really a rather unimportant thing, and you shouldn't fret over it so much. In 100 years, no one will care that Jimi Hendrix is a one-hit wonder; people will still appeciate his contributions to music. But, in 100 years, Britney Spears will probably be viewed as a faddy one-hit wonder with "Baby One More Time", even though that wouldn't really be the truth at all. This article merely lists the artists who were TRUE one-hit wonders, not the ones that society generally assumes were one-hit wonders, or thinks of as one-hit wonders. Yes, I agree with you, that list would include Spears and the Spice Girls and Hanson, and would exclude Hendrix. However, this list also wouldn't really be "fair", and people would simply edit it with their own opinions, since none of us can really accurately measure how many Americans PERCEIVE of the Spice Girls as one-hit wonders. 68.44.184.172 04:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think you are mis-reading me. I am not making a case for removing all objective criteria that determines who a one-hit wonder is. I am making a case that our current heuristic is broken, since it lists as "one hit wonders" bands who no one would call a one-hit wonder. See Talk:1990s_One-hit_wonders_in_the_United_States Samboy 23:36, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've always understood that you've never advocated the elimination of objective and factual criteria in compiling this list. However, I consider your decision to include arbitrary new criteria a very subjective move on your part. "Three top 40 albums" is obviously something that an artist either had or did not have--a very objective criterion in and of itself. But, someone else could just as easily come along and state that, "any artist who has had at least 3 top 10 dance hits is not a one-hit wonder" or "any song that has achieved gold digital single sales is to be considered a hit". Both are very objective and well-defined criteria, but one person's arbitrary choosing to include the certain criteria in the definition of "one-hit wonder" is itself very subjective. Statements like these seem, to me, to be tailor-made by supporters of particular artists or particular genres of music in order to make their favorites seem successful. Why should we make exceptions for successes on the albums chart, but not make exceptions for airplay successes, sales successes, Hot 100 Rap Singles successes, or even Pop 100 successes? It's just arbitrary choice.68.44.184.172 04:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is why I have remapped the term to something which more reflect's an average person's internal definition of "one hit wonder":

A "one hit wonder" is someone who only had one top 40 Billboard hit, and who has had less than three top 40 albums in their musical career.

This is a better heuristic (Plain English: "This works a lot better") for determining what is and is not a "one hit wonder", since it better reflects the reality that a lot of very notable artists, who are more album-oriented than single oriented, and hence have few (sometimes only one) hit singles, are not one hit wonders. Samboy 07:56, 7 May 2005 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:One-hit_wonders_in_the_United_States"

So what if they're more album-oriented? This isn't a list of artists who've had hit albums or strong album sales, and no one's denying that those bands are album-oriented. It's a list of artists who've only had one Billboard Hot 100 top 40 hit, which is a criterion that those bands have. Maybe someone should TRY to create a "list of perceived one-hit wonders", or something along those lines. But, agreeing who to include, and for what reasons, will be a real bitch. 68.44.184.172 04:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I responded to this on Talk:1990s_One-hit_wonders_in_the_United_States Samboy 23:36, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're right. --Carolaman 17:28, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I am happy that Nine Inch Nails just recently had their latest single reach the top 40 in the hot 100. Before, they did have one hit, but "Closer", which is possibly their most familiar song, reached #41 on the hot 100. I mean, it is not an issue now, but man, that is about as close to not being a one-hit wonder as you can get. Mcfly85 22:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

How so? Technically, from a perceived P.O.V., I think many people only know of them because of "Closer". Then again, this is just my opinion, so I could be totally off. What was their first "hit" if not "Closer"? 68.44.184.172 04:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Down in it" got some airplay on alternative stations in 1990, along with "Sin", both from the "Pretty Hate Machine" album, which became a cult classic in the late 1990s. I didn't listen to top 40 at the time, so I don't think that album got any airplay on bubble-gum pop stations, but, then again, I'm not sure how much airplay NIN got on bubble-gum stations. Then again, Reznor is extremely popular for his genere. Samboy 04:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Z100, New York City's (and, therefore, the country's) highest-rated pop station, played "Closer" in heavy rotation, as far as I can remember, in 1994 and 1995. It was a time when alternative rock was all the rage on MTV, and Z100 had a very strong alternative bent. (It might have even been listed as a "rock", as opposed to CHR, station during 1995 and early 1996, but I'm not 100% sure.) Its ratings sunk in 1996, and by mid-1996 it was seeing increased competition from the likes of PLJ (Hot AC) and KTU (NYC's new all-dance rhythmic top 40 station). By the end of 1996 and through most of 1997, almost all rap, R&B, and rock music was phased out of Z100 in favor of the pure pop, AC, adult alternative, and dance. Still, "Closer" somehow (I guess it was considered dance-y enough) managed to get played throughout 1996, 1997, and I think into early 1998. It was, for a time during the late 1990's, the "hardest" song being heard on Z100. Due to this and MTV's huge support of the video (it was one of NIN's only playable videos at that time), I had always assumed that this was far and away the band's most massive hit. I had thought "Head Like A Hole" (also generally respected by MTV, but a song I've never heard on pop radio) was a quasi-hit for the band. I'd never have imagined that "Sin", whose video was unplayable, was anything the least bit resembling a radio success...it shows you how much local CHR radio and MTV influence our perceptions of what songs are "hits" and what aren't.68.44.184.172 04:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You know, looking at this discussion a few years later, I can see why people outside the United States were scratching thier heads when we cried bloody murder when people like Rush, Jimi Hendrix, and the Grateful Dead were listed as "one hit wonders". In the case of Rush, they never play Rush down here in Mexico, and most people, even people very familiar with American music, don't know who Rush is. Maybe it's this way in other countries--the only American music they play here is old top-40, and their is no concept of "Album Oriented Rock" which was (and still is) a big part of American culture. Samboy 19:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Can one download all of the top 40 tables?

Can one download both an exhaustive list of top 40 hits and top 40 albums somewhere? I get the sense this is protected information. If this information was available, hoqwever, a list of one-hit wonders would be a simple matter of running a Perl script. Samboy 23:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Self-references

Samboy said in an edit summary that self-references had been discussed on this talk page. That appears to be #REDIRECT [[false, so I'll start the discussion. Wikipedia:Avoid self-references clearly states that articles should not refer to Wikipedia, or the Wikipedia editing process. They should not contain instructions on criteria for the list. Criteria belong at the top of the talk page, see Wikiproject Albums for an example of how to avoid self-references properly. Under no circumstances should the word "Wikipedia" be included in this article. Thanks. Rhobite 20:34, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification; the reason for the revert is because of a controversey over what exactly is a one-hit wonder that I would like to see resolved in the future. Samboy 20:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== Albums ==]]

Shouldn't two successful albums should be enough to disqualify an artist or band from one-hit wonder status? That would take bands like Nazareth, Psychedelic Furs, T. Rex, Thin Lizzy, Devo, and Fabulous Thunderbirds off the list. Carolaman 16:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest you post a poll about it. Make sure to list it at Wikipedia:Current surveys and mention it on the talk pages for each of the decade articles. -- DDG 20:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Iggy Pop

He shouldn't be listed, but none of his albums reached the upper reaches of the Billboard 200, and "Candy," is his only single to chart anywhere on the Billboard Hot 100. Should he be left on? Carolaman 16:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, in italics as is custom with artists in his condition (those with singles that charted on genre-specific charts only) Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 19:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

ABBA

I'm removing ABBA because it erroneously states that Dancing Queen was the only Top 40 hit for ABBA in the US. It was their only #1 but FAR from their only Top 40 hit. Take a Chance On Me hit #3, Waterloo hit #6, and a slew of others (Fernando, Does Your Mother Know, Knowing Me, Knowing You, etc) made the Top 20. Mike H. That's hot 22:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Mary MacGregor

What about borderline cases like Mary MacGregor? I think it's safe to say that her rendition of "Torn Between Two Lovers" is a one-hit wonder, but she did have another Top 40 song...but just barely, peaking at #39. Yea or nay for listing her as a one-hit wonder? Mike H. That's hot 22:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd vote Nay. We set up the Top 40 rule in order to remove any kind of subjectivity from the classification process, so if she has two top 40 hits, take her off. --DDG 22:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
But she only released two singles, and that second single only went to #39. She's basically only known for that one song, and then slipped into obscurity. I think she's a good vote for "Yea." Mike H. That's hot 23:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Eat World

Why is Jimmy Eat World listed as a band with "longevity" or a "huge influence" that therefore disqualifies them from being a 1HW? They haven't been around that long... and aren't that influential... --DDG 21:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, i got an idea! Fuck yourself, Jimmy Eat World is the most influential band of the 1990's-2000s and by far the best band ever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captain Carwash (talk • contribs) 05:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
Mind the expletives, but i kinda agree. Jimmy Eat World had more in them than just "The Middle" (their sole Top-40 single), in fact, the album it was off of, Bleed American comes nowhere near the influence on emo that Clarity had. Also the band's been around since 1994-95, that's longevity. Doc Strange 18:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The SOS Band

I added The SOS Band to the "Singers/Bands with only one hit who are not one-hit wonders" section, only to have someone else come back and remove them, placing them back in the List of 1980s one-hit wonders in the United States list. While a number of the other acts on the lists had charting hits on other charts besides the Billboard Hot 100, The SOS Band had number-one hits on the Billboard R&B (Black Singles) chart at a time when radio was highly segregated following the demise of disco. The group was highly successful, and is known as a top R&B act of the 1980s, and were the first group to have hits produced by Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis.

Most of the group's recordings for which they are best known ("Just Be Good to Me", "Tell Me If YOu Still Care", "Weekend Girl", "Feeling", "The Finest", etc.) were all recorded some time after their singular Top-40 hit, the discoish "Take Your Toime (Do It Right)" from 1980. Before jumping the gun and adding them back, I wanted to see what others thought first. However, "I've never heard of the SOS Band" is not a valid reply, ecause I've never heard of a good bit of the people currently on the "Singers/Bands with only one hit who are not one-hit wonders" list either. --FuriousFreddy 07:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

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)

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)


References

  1. ^ 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.
  2. ^ a b "7 one-hit wonders from the 2010s". Yeah But Seriously Though. Retrieved January 12, 2018.
  3. ^ 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

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)
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)

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)

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)

RfC about inclusion criteria

The consensus is "not at all" per WP:SYNTH.

Cunard (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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)
  • 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)

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.

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)

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) 

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)

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)

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)
  • 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)
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.

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.

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)

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_one-hit_wonders_in_the_United_States/Archive_1&oldid=1210737564"