Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Number ones of Lithuania Airplay Chart (2006)

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. W.marsh 14:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number ones of Lithuania Airplay Chart (2006)[edit]

Listcruft; details of the number-one records of every chart in the world (or even in all major countries) is unnecessary and unecyclopædic. I'm also nominating the following article for the same reason (and I'd like this AfD to cover the creation of similar articles for other years)

Question. Are articles like

List of number-one singles from the 1950s (UK)

List of number-one singles from the 1960s (UK)

List of number-one singles from the 1970s (UK)

List of number-one singles from the 1980s (UK)

List of number-one singles from the 1990s (UK)

List of number-one singles from the 2000s (UK)

covered by this AfD? The scope is unclear to me. Wasted Time R 14:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is where categories fail, they can't tell what date the singles charted at #1. Being a #1 single is a clear indication of notability. Whs itc hy 15:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its regiocentric to have US and UK number ones, and not have other countries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please review this article based on its merits. Punkmorten 18:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, we're just pointing out that we'd keep those too. If you want to kill the entire concept of listing #1 songs, nominate them all at once instead of taking the anti-third world approach. Chris Croy 22:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a limited list and it provides useful information. I always find it fascinating how our American music can hit #1 in other countries - Does anyone know if those songs are translated? Chris Croy 22:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jonhoistic nomination. --Nricardo 22:51, 3 June 2007 (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.