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. ✗plicit 00:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Top 30[edit]

Mega Top 30 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Reviewed during new page patrol. No indication of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. An award put out by a particular company. References appear to be only to themselves and content of article appears to be only by themselves. Unable to find GNG sources in a search. North8000 (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Mega Top 30 is the oldest (since 1969) and most important Dutch music chart after the Dutch Top 40. The weekly chart belongs to the Dutch national public broadcaster NPO. It used to be called the Mega Top 50 and Mega Top 100. In 2019 the NPO changed the charts' name from Mega Top 50 to Mega Top 30. Because of the references to the old name I created a new article Mega Top 30, copied the contents of Mega Top 50 to the new article and redirected Mega Top 50 to the new page. So the article may appear new but in fact it has been around since 2006. This is also reflected in the large number of articles linking to the page (mostly via redirects). If there is another another way I should've handled the charts' name change then mea culpa but don't delete this article because of it. I do agree that the sourcing could be better but I hope to have established WP:N here.Mill 1 (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the best thing to do then and now is to find a source or two that talks about Mega Top 30. Even one that just says a few of things that you just said would do it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. I updated the article and added a relevant reference, albeit in Dutch. It's incredible that an affluent organisation as the NPO would tolerate such a bad pages about itself.Mill 1 (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote (again) to 'Keep'; the action suggested by @Slywriter: has been executed, thus repairing my ill-conceived cut-and-paste move. I think this is pretty much the conclusion of the discussion. Cheers Mill 1 (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Procedurally this was wrong. If Mega 50 and Mega 30 are the same, then the cut and paste move was bad. Redirect should be reverted, Article should be renamed and then redirect created. Slywriter (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets GNG. Delete stricken. Slywriter (talk) 04:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you but I do not have the necessary permissions to perform that task myself. Who should do that? Mill 1 (talk) 09:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REPAIR noticeboard should be able to provide guidance. Slywriter (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Placed the histmerge template on Mega Top 30 Mill 1 (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See above; WP:REPAIR has been done.

• Keep. There is no notability concern, there only was a technical problem. This problem has been fixed and the AfD can be closed. Nominator, per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, please use all relevant channels and templates to fix problems, not just the AfD! gidonb (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2022 (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.