Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billboard Hot 100 11 to 20 peaks

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of billboard hot 100 11 to 20 peaks in 1958

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe the Billboard top ten lists are already bordering WP:IINFO, but taking these to top 20 songs, especially done in this manner (just showing Hot 100 peaks of 11 through 20) is even more indiscriminate and simply WP:LISTCRUFT for chart enthusiasts. I consider it similar to AfDs for lists of number-two hit songs (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hot 100 number-two singles of 2008 (U.S.) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Billboard Hot 100 number-two singles of 2015) which have been deleted. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added list for 1970 after the first delete !vote below. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Completely WP:LISTCRUFT, using the same rationale as the previous two AfD's mentioned. Ajf773 (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per nom. The top-10 lists are useful, but these lists are cruft. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I agree with User:Power~enwiki that Top 10 lists are useful and pass WP:GNG but that these are cruft. What's up next? List of Billboard Hot 100 21 to 30 peaks? List of losing World Series teams? List of losing FA Cup semi-finalists? No, thanks! Narky Blert (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I have asked @Aidanis20: to refrain from creating more of these lists pending the results of this AfD, but List of Billboard Hot 100 11 to 20 peaks in 1960 has now been published and should be included in this nomination. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Include it. Ajf773 (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow a full seven days of discussion on all of the articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Completely esoteric chart information, listcruft, probable COPYVIO, unsourced, I could probably cite a few more things. Nate • (chatter) 20:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars . Can we add the following years to this debate? 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967. Despite your warnings, they were created anyhow. Ajf773 (talk) 11:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Since it could extend this discussion another week, I thought I'd let this one conclude and, assuming a consensus to delete, I would PROD those ones. If the author removed them, I'd nominate them in a new AfD, citing the consensus of this one. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 14:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.