Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of top 10 singles in 2013 (Japan)

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. J04n(talk page) 11:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of top 10 singles in 2013 (Japan)

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

Like previous nominations for List of Billboard Korea K-Pop Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2011 and List of Billboard Alternative top 10 singles in 2012, my feeling is that these types of lists are an indiscriminate collection of information, with citations only from the principal source and an arbitrary cut off, plus it's not even the main chart in Japan, which is published by Oricon. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 23 March 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, Mediran (t • c) 00:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete INDISCRIMINATE list of no enduring, encyclopedic value. - Mr X 01:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Indiscriminate list of information. If it was about number one singles, based on Oricon, or both, then it could have been notable, but no. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And number one lists for both charts do already exist, as seen here and here. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent (the examples in nom statement) and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Gong show 17:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While not directly listed under WP:NOT, I feel like this article merely duplicates what the weekly charts already provide with out adding anything in particular. The crossover to other articles is also not a good contention to have. Mkdw ^talk 09:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the same reasons identified above.Kabirat (talk) 09:10, 5 April 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.