Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Number one modern rock hits of 1988

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 keep. Nomination also seemed to be withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 00:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Number one modern rock hits of 1988

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

It only makes sense to merge 2 yearly lists of number ones on a chart especially when one of them represents only 1/3 of a year due to a September debut. Another editor created a well-sourced, more thorough, and better formatted list of the first two years of the modern rock chart at List of number-one alternative singles of the 1980s (U.S.). A list of songs by when they reached number one looks so much better than a list of weeks with huge blocks (using "rowspan") for each song. As opposed to more recent Hot 100 yearly lists that have been promoted to feature lists (see List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2010 (U.S.)), these have no content beyond the lists themselves. If not having the online sources is an issue they can be merged into the 1 1/3 year list. These individual lists themselves are no longer needed. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see how the new page is significantly any better than what already exists. By combining two years, the uniformity of the by-year lists (up to the present) is destroyed. The newer format also causes problems with songs spending non-consecutive weeks at number one. If the images and summary at the top of the newer article make it more thorough then there is no reason not to copy that information over to the 1988 and 1989 pages. I don't have a problem with the rowspan-block layout either, although this really is a more of a personal preference thing... in fact I do prefer it over the colors and symbols in the newer list. - eo (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting... hmm.. I'm not sure. Every year of Alternative number ones its own article, and deleting these two would kind of throw it off, but I do like the new combined article better. If we delete these two it would make sense to me to delete every individual year article and only list them by the decades, which I like the idea of. NYSMy talk page 17:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Starcheers, are you recommending deletion in any way? Your argument appears to recommended merge as the course of action, so I wanted to give you a heads up that AfD noms that don't have a deletion argument qualify for speedy keep #1. If this is the case, you may want to withdraw your nom. In the future, you can propose what may be a controversial move for discussion at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. Have a good one czar · · 17:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, what the hell, might as well. It's just coming down to "this way is better than that way" arguments anyway. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, was that "might as well" as in withdraw or in recommending deletion? I took it as the latter since you didn't explicitly withdraw. czar · · 17:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:43, 30 June 2013 (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.