52:. I have had to read the arguments individually and carefully, and those without policy-based arguments are truly unhelpful on this one, and unfortunately easily discounted. One also has to include "REALITY". While the topic of Australian influence on UK music might be a good idea, this list does ot address that, nor is it useful nor indivcative of anything. It's therefore
297:, which recommends using lists to classify and sub-categorize items. You also state it "borders on listcruft", which suggests to me that you don't think it actually is listcruft, and the individual entries are notable by the music notability guidelines, so your only argument seems to be that classifying singles by nationality isn't useful. --
977:
Hmm, who says the Bee Gees are
British, Australian and American? You? Themselves? Passport Control? None of that really addresses Tarc's point thoughĀ : "Something that backs up the assertion that Australian singers are especially notable in the UK might help for starters.". Why are Australian singers
106:
101:
292:
isn't grounds for deletion. Lists of number one singles are notable because number one singles are notable, and classifying things by nationality is exceedingly common (Knowledge has numerous categories for musical acts, etc, by nationality). My argument was not "other stuff exists", it was that
110:
93:
178:
790:
Notability of the items does count, per the guidelines I cited above. This is not the place for teaching you our lists-related guidelines (you should know them before coming here and vote). Read them, so you could provide a more solid, policy-based argument for deletion, other than
661:? There is no special distinction of artists from one country reaching #1 in another country, not enough to do in list form anyways. If the artist or song itself is notable, then the information on their chart status would be better served by categorizing their article via
907:
1) The page is unlikely to be something linked by many articles or typed in via a google search. Where might you link the page from? I might look for individual entries in the list, but I would never think of looking for this specific list. Aside from a brief
595:
Further, your vote appears to have absolutely no significance in relation to the discussion in question ā what does "Australians having a long impact in
British impact in chart music" have anything to do with the fact that this is a trivial list?
172:
955:. 2)No, nationality is not something subjective, except for some specific cases... the relevance to this list of Bee Gees is explained in the notes, but that said you are free to remove it from the list. This is a typical
138:
901:
arguments why the page should stay. If you can't do that without hiding behind bureaucracy and procedures, it's probably a good indication there might be merit in the opposing point of view. I'll repeat my counter
629:
is. Your vague hand-wave at "its notable cause I say so" doesn't help matters any either. Something that backs up the assertion that
Australian singers are especially notable in the UK might help for starters.
1020:
993:
968:
944:
870:
852:
837:
819:
804:
781:
745:
703:
674:
639:
620:
602:
590:
575:
546:
513:
495:
480:
447:
428:
416:
390:
368:
346:
321:
306:
281:
258:
224:
75:
949:
My replies: 1) No one of our guidelines says anything about Google searches or WP searches. Orphan articles are allowed, and anyway here we are talking about one that is linked by many other articles
929:- also born in the UK, representing that county in the Eurovision Song Contest, and having most of his hitmaking career there. What do the subjects of the articles consider their nationality to be? --
193:
160:
758:. Just because individual entries are notable, it does not mean the list is. Also, just because something is an essay, it does not mean the content in it is without merit. Can you justify
154:
315:. Also your statements; "My argument was not "other stuff exists" and "Knowledge has numerous categories for musical acts, etc, by nationality" are contradicting each other, by far.
953:
658:
150:
1008:
97:
200:
89:
81:
438:
That's impossible because the list is too long to put in a sortable table with nationality one of the sorting criteria. Having a separate list is the best alternative. --
242:
332:
133:
166:
238:
685:
376:
354:
424:, interesting, but I believe it's over-listification really. Ideally the nationality information would be included on a master list of all #1 UK singles.
580:
I find it offensive how somebody would ask someone else to to read up about deletion when they have been doing it for a whole year. How about next time
504:
can be, "The list is of interest to a very limited number of people", which I believe this list is not. I think it's a "valuable information source."
625:
Honestly, the WP:BEFORE handwaving is getting rather tiring and it borders on being considered an insult, much the same as as "learn to read or
762:
the list meets the criteria you specified above - as it still sounds like "it's notable because I say so". PS: Some might disagree that the
234:
293:
this data is stored in lists indexed in other ways, and indexing it by nationality is beneficial. This is entirely in accordance with
662:
17:
69:
889:
Could you explain why why it follows the rules of notability? Don't just point to policy and say "because I said so" (
401:
I can't imagine anyone is going to explicitly look for these search terms - it's far too narrow a set of criteria. --
464:
267:
1039:
916:
period circa 1988, I don't recall a notable trend of
Australian artists reaching the top of the charts in the UK.
40:
725:
requirements. Every item of the list is notable. The belonging of every item to this list is easily verifiable.
277:
220:
443:
302:
254:
509:
476:
729:
is just an essay, not a policy nor a guideline, and that said no one has argumented in what this list is
1035:
718:
542:
289:
36:
311:
Really... It doesn't seem apparent to me that anything in my rationale for deletion was in relation to
1016:
986:
937:
774:
766:
are
Australian given they weren't born there and have spent more time living in the UK and the US. --
409:
813:
But you ignored the rest of their rationale, which says "...it's far too narrow a set of criteria".
964:
866:
847:
833:
814:
800:
741:
732:
726:
597:
585:
501:
490:
468:
316:
271:
214:
210:
186:
53:
460:
439:
298:
250:
57:
956:
755:
616:
571:
505:
486:
472:
386:
364:
342:
312:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1034:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
698:
659:
List of singles by
Portuguese artists that reached number one on the Icelandic Singles Chart
559:
538:
527:
1012:
1009:
List of singles by
British artists that reached number one on the Australian Singles Chart
979:
930:
767:
714:
607:
I wont insult your itelligence by explaining it to you, as you might find it "offensive".
402:
960:
890:
862:
829:
796:
737:
670:
635:
425:
722:
90:
List of singles by
Australian artists that reached number one on the UK Singles Chart
82:
List of singles by
Australian artists that reached number one on the UK Singles Chart
64:
926:
609:
564:
382:
360:
338:
243:
List of singles by
European artists that reached number one on the UK Singles Chart
56:, and unusable/unworkable. The consensus of the policy-based arguments is delete (
485:'Interesting' does not justify a reason to have the list. Your vote appears to be
127:
245:, etc. One of the guidelines for good lists is that they should be categorized:
690:
294:
246:
584:
address the issue being presented, and not the editor in question. Kthanksbye.
909:
558:
Australian artists have had a long impact in British chart music. Please read
530:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
666:
631:
922:
793:
I can't imagine anyone is going to explicitly look for these search terms
763:
686:
List of British artists that reached number one on the Billboard Hot 100
1028:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
795:". Someone's imagination is not a strong argument for deletion.
626:
913:
463:
points out, there are plenty of similar lists. (yeah, i know,
213:. There's no indication of why it is notable and/or relevant.
1011:
which will include most of the entries in this list. --
950:
123:
119:
115:
754:"Every item of the list is notable" - doesn't matter.
185:
249:
mentions lists "grouped by theme" as a good thing. --
891:
hayyyyya I point my shadowless fists of death at you
537:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1042:). No further edits should be made to this page.
952:and that last month was visited about 300 times
467:). I think it's an interesting list that avoids
333:list of Australia-related deletion discussions
270:is not a valid reason for keeping an article.
239:List of UK Singles Chart Christmas number ones
921:2) The content is highly subjective - do the
199:
8:
663:Category:UK Singles Chart number-one singles
375:Note: This debate has been included in the
353:Note: This debate has been included in the
331:Note: This debate has been included in the
377:list of Lists-related deletion discussions
374:
355:list of Music-related deletion discussions
352:
330:
684:This is crazy. Might as well also create
233:It's a complement to other lists like
7:
235:List of UK Singles Chart number ones
500:I mention it being interesting as
209:I think this list is bordering on
24:
1007:. Just in case somebody creates
978:especially notable in the UK? --
846:? My reply, or their rationale?
828:...that is spectacularly vague.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
756:Notability is not inherited
1059:
861:The rationale, obviously.
1021:21:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
76:10:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
1031:Please do not modify it.
994:15:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
969:14:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
945:14:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
871:13:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
853:13:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
838:13:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
820:12:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
805:12:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
782:09:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
746:20:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
704:14:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
675:13:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
640:19:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
621:17:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
603:14:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
591:14:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
576:07:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
547:01:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
514:09:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
496:06:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
481:06:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
448:10:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
429:12:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
417:11:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
391:16:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
369:16:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
347:16:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
322:14:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
307:10:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
282:06:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
259:12:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
225:11:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
957:surmountable problem
465:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
268:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
899:easy to understand
48:The result was
893:) - give me some
549:
393:
380:
371:
358:
349:
336:
1050:
1033:
991:
984:
942:
935:
779:
772:
702:
695:
612:
567:
536:
532:
414:
407:
381:
359:
337:
204:
203:
189:
141:
131:
113:
72:
68:
60:
34:
1058:
1057:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1040:deletion review
1029:
987:
980:
938:
931:
775:
768:
691:
689:
610:
565:
525:
410:
403:
146:
137:
104:
88:
85:
70:
62:
58:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1056:
1054:
1045:
1044:
1024:
1023:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
996:
972:
971:
918:
917:
904:
903:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
873:
856:
855:
849:Till I Go Home
841:
840:
823:
822:
816:Till I Go Home
808:
807:
785:
784:
749:
748:
719:WP:Source list
707:
706:
678:
677:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
599:Till I Go Home
587:Till I Go Home
552:
551:
550:
534:
533:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
492:Till I Go Home
453:
452:
451:
450:
433:
432:
419:
395:
394:
372:
350:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
318:Till I Go Home
290:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
285:
284:
273:Till I Go Home
262:
261:
216:Till I Go Home
207:
206:
143:
84:
79:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1055:
1043:
1041:
1037:
1032:
1026:
1025:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1003:
1002:
995:
992:
990:
985:
983:
976:
975:
974:
973:
970:
966:
962:
958:
954:
951:
948:
947:
946:
943:
941:
936:
934:
928:
924:
920:
919:
915:
911:
906:
905:
900:
896:
892:
888:
887:
872:
868:
864:
860:
859:
858:
857:
854:
851:
850:
845:
844:
843:
842:
839:
835:
831:
827:
826:
825:
824:
821:
818:
817:
812:
811:
810:
809:
806:
802:
798:
794:
789:
788:
787:
786:
783:
780:
778:
773:
771:
765:
761:
757:
753:
752:
751:
750:
747:
743:
739:
735:
734:
731:bordering on
728:
724:
720:
716:
712:
709:
708:
705:
700:
696:
694:
687:
683:
680:
679:
676:
672:
668:
664:
660:
657:- What next,
656:
653:
652:
641:
637:
633:
628:
624:
623:
622:
618:
614:
613:
606:
605:
604:
601:
600:
594:
593:
592:
589:
588:
583:
579:
578:
577:
573:
569:
568:
561:
557:
554:
553:
548:
544:
540:
535:
531:
529:
524:
523:
515:
511:
507:
503:
499:
498:
497:
494:
493:
488:
484:
483:
482:
478:
474:
470:
466:
462:
461:Colapeninsula
458:
455:
454:
449:
445:
441:
440:Colapeninsula
437:
436:
435:
434:
430:
427:
423:
420:
418:
415:
413:
408:
406:
400:
397:
396:
392:
388:
384:
378:
373:
370:
366:
362:
356:
351:
348:
344:
340:
334:
329:
323:
320:
319:
314:
310:
309:
308:
304:
300:
299:Colapeninsula
296:
291:
287:
286:
283:
279:
275:
274:
269:
266:
265:
264:
263:
260:
256:
252:
251:Colapeninsula
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
229:
228:
227:
226:
222:
218:
217:
212:
202:
198:
195:
192:
188:
184:
180:
177:
174:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
152:
149:
148:Find sources:
144:
140:
135:
129:
125:
121:
117:
112:
108:
103:
99:
95:
91:
87:
86:
83:
80:
78:
77:
73:
67:
66:
61:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1030:
1027:
1004:
988:
981:
939:
932:
927:Frank Ifield
925:count? Does
898:
894:
848:
815:
792:
776:
769:
759:
733:WP:LISTCRUFT
730:
727:WP:LISTCRUFT
710:
692:
681:
654:
608:
598:
586:
581:
563:
555:
526:
506:Doctorhawkes
502:WP:LISTCRUFT
491:
473:Doctorhawkes
469:WP:LISTCRUFT
456:
421:
411:
404:
398:
317:
272:
230:
215:
211:WP:LISTCRUFT
208:
196:
190:
182:
175:
169:
163:
157:
147:
63:
54:WP:LISTCRUFT
49:
47:
31:
28:
902:argumentsĀ :
760:why exactly
562:next time.
539:Ron Ritzman
173:free images
1013:Richhoncho
982:Ritchie333
933:Ritchie333
910:Neighbours
770:Ritchie333
487:WP:ILIKEIT
405:Ritchie333
313:WP:ILIKEIT
1036:talk page
961:Cavarrone
863:Cavarrone
830:Cavarrone
797:Cavarrone
738:Cavarrone
560:WP:BEFORE
426:Lankiveil
383:ā¢ Gene93k
361:ā¢ Gene93k
339:ā¢ Gene93k
37:talk page
1038:or in a
923:Bee Gees
764:Bee Gees
715:WP:NLIST
528:Relisted
134:View log
65:BWilkins
39:or in a
611:Lugnuts
566:Lugnuts
179:WPĀ refs
167:scholar
107:protect
102:history
1005:Delete
989:(talk)
940:(talk)
895:simple
777:(talk)
723:WP:NNC
713:meets
693:StatĻ
s
682:Delete
655:Delete
422:Delete
412:(talk)
399:Delete
151:Google
111:delete
71:ātrack
50:delete
194:JSTOR
155:books
139:Stats
128:views
120:watch
116:links
59:talkā
16:<
1017:talk
965:talk
897:and
867:talk
834:talk
801:talk
742:talk
721:and
711:Keep
699:talk
671:talk
667:Tarc
636:talk
632:Tarc
627:RTFM
617:talk
572:talk
556:Keep
543:talk
510:talk
477:talk
457:Keep
444:talk
387:talk
365:talk
343:talk
303:talk
295:WP:L
288:And
278:talk
255:talk
247:WP:L
231:Keep
221:talk
187:FENS
161:news
124:logs
98:talk
94:edit
914:SAW
582:you
459:As
201:TWL
136:ā¢
132:ā (
1019:)
967:)
912:/
869:)
836:)
803:)
744:)
736:.
717:,
688:.
673:)
665:.
638:)
619:)
574:)
545:)
512:)
489:.
479:)
471:.
446:)
389:)
379:.
367:)
357:.
345:)
335:.
305:)
280:)
257:)
241:,
237:,
223:)
181:)
126:|
122:|
118:|
114:|
109:|
105:|
100:|
96:|
74:)
1015:(
963:(
959:.
865:(
832:(
799:(
791:"
740:(
701:)
697:(
669:(
634:(
615:(
570:(
541:(
508:(
475:(
442:(
431:.
385:(
363:(
341:(
301:(
276:(
253:(
219:(
205:)
197:Ā·
191:Ā·
183:Ā·
176:Ā·
170:Ā·
164:Ā·
158:Ā·
153:(
145:(
142:)
130:)
92:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.