Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one Hot 100 Airplay hits

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one Hot 100 Airplay hits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Also nominating the following lists:

List of number-one Billboard Mainstream Top 40 hits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Billboard number-one Rhythmic hits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just serves as a navigation tool when Template:Hot 100 Airplay number-one singles is sufficient. Any content, which is minimal anyway, is already covered in the article Hot 100 Airplay (Radio Songs). Similarly for Template:Top 40 Mainstream and Mainstream Top 40, and Template:Rhythmic Top 40 and Rhythmic (chart). Other navigation is provided by Template:Billboard. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "List of number-one Hot 100 Airplay hits" seems to do the same as "Hot 100 Airplay number-one singles". Gregkaye (talk) 09:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per above. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 18:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per above. <–Davey2010 • (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:CLT. That a list is redundant to a navbox isn't a good reason for deletion. These lists essentially serve the same purpose as disambiguation pages and complement other ways of organising the articles. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 10:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages don't have similar navboxes at the bottom of each of the related articles, therefore there is no additional aid in navigation not already being served by the navboxes in these cases. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:51, 27 June 2014 (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.