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. Black Kite (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gaon Digital Chart number ones of 2017[edit]

List of Gaon Digital Chart number ones of 2017 (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)

this is simply a mirror of the web page referenced. As per WP:NOTMIRROR this page does not have its place on wikipedia. Domdeparis (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Before I cast any !votes, I would like to know whether this AfD would also encompass the "list of number ones" entries at Template:Gaon. If the rationale for deletion is that any year of this list topic would just copy information from lists like these, then it seems like it would be appropriate to take the entire group to AfD. Icebob99 (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would be tempted to say that this kind of list that is a simple copy of information and has no encyclopedic value. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a collection of indiscriminate information as per WP:IINFO. In the different lists of N°1s the only references are to the chart's web page. I personally don't see the point. I am not experienced enough to say if these lists or any others should be deleted in a blanket AfD. --Domdeparis (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one streaming songs of 2017 (South Korea) --JustBerry (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteMove. I've decided that not only the article content fails WP:IINFO but also the topic itself. Since it specifically mentions Gaon in the title, it inherently is only able to contain material released by Gaon, which would be mirror article content. The nominator might want to take all the articles with Gaon in their name to AfD. I think, however, that the titles in this category that don't include Gaon deserve a separate discussion. Icebob99 (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't this include all (or almost all) lists in Category:Lists of number-one songs and Category:Lists of number-one albums then? Strange idea. -- HvW (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC) BTW, where does WP:NOTMIRROR come in anyway? -- HvW (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HvW, I think that the AfD is targeting the fact that the article title reads "Gaon", thus it could only include the lists published by Gaon, rather than an unbiased selection of other ranking websites. Articles in that category don't necessarily include Gaon and thus can contain encyclopedic information that isn't copied off the Gaon website. If this were just a List of number ones of 2017, then there would be no reason for deletion. Since it is titled List of Gaon Digital Chart number ones of 2017, however, it can only use information published by Gaon, thus making it like a mirror. Icebob99 (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So you would delete Lists of Billboard Hot 100 number-one songs because it says "Billboard", but you would keep Lists of number-one digital songs in the United States‎ because it is about the "United States" in general. Clever. What about just renaming the Gaon list then? -- HvW (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NOTMIRROR states that Wikipedia is not a mirror of other web sites. The information on these list are simply a mirror of the information on the chart website with nothing else added. If you want to find the number one for week 12/11/2016 to 17/11/2016 on the Gaon charts you go to the website of the Gaon charts and the advantage is that you have all the other songs in the charts. That said I am now having second thoughts about the nomination because the advantage of these lists is the possibility of seeing a a glance the Number 1s for an entire year and also see which songs stayed in for a certain number of weeks in a row... Domdeparis (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HvW, yes, I would delete the Billboard lists for the same reason that I gave above. The difference between having Billboard and United States in the title means that the Billboard list can only include information from the Billboard ranking, whereas the United States list could have other rankings, thus making it NPOV on the topic of lists of #1 songs. That said, let's not consider those lists for deletion until this discussion gets hashed out, because a consensus here would be a good indicator of whether those lists are indeed encyclopedic. I would support renaming the Gaon list to List of South Korean number ones of 2016, but the list would have to be substantially reworked, because I'm not sure that Gaon is the South Korean equivalent of Billboard, based on this google search. (If someone could indeed clarify whether Gaon is like Billboard, I would appreciate that). That would leave us with two options: 1. delete the article and create lists with the NPOV title South Korea, or 2. move the page to the NPOV title South Korea and leave the current content (with a few tweaks as a result of the title change). The two cases depend on whether Gaon is like Billboard. I'll strike my delete !vote and change it to a Move !vote if the second case holds true, but based on what I found about Gaon, it looks like the first case would be appropriate. Either way, the page can't keep its current title (and that might apply to Billboard as well). Icebob99 (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm doing those list in the German Wikipedia I can assure you that Gaon is for South Korea what Billboard is for the US or OCC for the UK, GfK for Germany and Oricon for Japan. Gaon are the official chart makers. Since I am kind of a "chart freak" in de: and those lists are even longer around in the WP than I am, I think this AfD discussion is strange. But then, we do not have NOTMIRROR in de:, at least not in the way it was explained here. So I won't vote here, but it would be a great loss. Most official sites are not offering those number one lists in the way the WP does, and you've got the bonus of the links to more information about songs, albums, and artists. And we need the lists because ... we have nobody who can translate the Korean song titles ;-) -- HvW (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HvW, thanks for the info. I'll change my !vote to Move based on what I said above. Thanks for adding your input :) Icebob99 (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KeepMove It's a Lists of number-one songs from the official chart of South Korea Gaon Chart, if this page is deleted than all the same pages for other countries like Japan & US should be also deleted, because all of them serves the same purpose. GD.BB (talk) 07:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GD.BB, would you want to move the page instead to a NPOV title? See the discussion above for details. Icebob99 (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming the page from Gaon list to List of South Korean number one is strange and does not make sense, if the name is changed then it would be right also to change Lists of Billboard Hot 100 number-one songs to Lists of United States number-one songs and the same goes for Oricon. I find it right to keep the current title, since everyone know that Gaon is the official chart of Korea just like Billboard is for US. Also for the WP:NOTMIRROR, I could see the point that it's a mirror of the web page, but that's not fully right; in Gaon official site most of the titles of the songs and names of the artists are written in Hangul, and for a normal English reader who wants to find the number-one song will be simply lost in the site, Wikipedia provides English title of both songs and artist and make it easier for non-korean to read. GD.BB (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GD.BB, I suggested above that renaming the Billboard articles would also be appropriate (again, for NPOV). I may not be a representative sample of the population at large, but I didn't know that Gaon was the official chart of South Korea. I'm an American, and I didn't even know that Billboard was the premier chart in the United States. The point is that Wikipedia has to be accessible to all readers, and not just those who might find it convenient to have the charts labeled by corporation rather than by country. That makes it harder for the reader to understand which country it references (for instance, I don't know which country Oricon represents). Also, I don't think that a list being in a different language than its source circumvents WP:NOTMIRROR, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a translation service for those who wish to read the Gaon charts in their native language. If it's the same information, albeit in a different language, then it mirrors the content of the website. Icebob99 (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Icebob99, I agree with renaming the page, it would be more appropriate, but I oppose with deleting it, South Korea is consider one of the biggest music markets in the world based on IFPI, and I believe their are many people interested in knowing the charts in the country and which artist is charting on the top, and about the WP:NOTMIRROR, I've added more sources from the Korea Music Content Industry Association (KMCIA). GD.BB (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GD.BB: I also oppose deleting it. I changed my !vote to move earlier. Glad this AfD is picking up momentum again. Icebob99 (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would agree that there doesn't need to/shouldn't be a "list of number ones" for every chart from every country, but I would argue reaching number one on the Hot 100 or on the main UK singles chart becomes notable in itself with coverage of the accomplishment found in 3rd party sources. There have been books solely dedicated to these achievements. I can't believe that any coverage exists for an album when it reaches number one on the Billboard Alternative Albums chart or a song for topping the Billboard Rhythmic chart beyond the release of the chart itself indicating its chart position. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on lack of coverage on the chart itself and thus even being number one on this chart is subject to notability concerns as a standalone list. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Notability of Gaon Digital Chart itself is questionable as only one independent reference is listed. This offshoot provides no independent authoritative references to show this particular chart enjoys any notability and clearly fails the notability requirement.--Rpclod (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rpclod, I don't know how is notability of Gaon is questionable, since it's the official chart of South Korea, same as Billboard in US, and therefore the same will goes for List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2017, since all the sources in the page are from only Billboard and no other sites. Either way I added new sources from Korea Music Content Industry Association (KMCIA) in the page. GD.BB (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2017 (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.