Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK R&B Chart records and statistics

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. MBisanz ^talk 23:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UK R&B Chart records and statistics

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

While the UK R&B chart is notable, I'd argue that this list of fairly arbitrary records from the chart is not; per WP:LISTN, the list's topic can be considered sufficiently notable if it has been discussed as a group in independent, reliable sources. As far as I have been able to tell, the sorts of chart records listed in this article (UK R&B chart records) have not been discussed by any reliable source, including even the Official Charts Company's news releases. This leads to another glaring issue; that the entire article's contents are original research, compiled in a piecemeal, unsystematic manner by its editors without reference to sources that specifically identify the artists and works as the holders of those records. Every single reference given in the article links to a single week of the chart, which is not at all informative when it comes to verifying whether the artist/song/album in question holds a record over the entire chart's history. For instance, to support the contention that JLS holds the record for most number-one albums on the chart, four references to individual chart weeks showing the four different albums at number one are given. Though this does support the claim that JLS have four number-one album on this chart, per WP:SYNTH, these sources do NOT support the contention that no other act has earned as many number-one albums on the chart and that JLS hold this record; indeed, there appear to be no sources that discuss this achievement in the context of that 'record' whatsoever. Nearly all of the 'records' and 'milestones' listed in the article suffer the same problem; therefore, in addition to the article's content being questionably noteworthy, it is also not verifiable. Mmrsofgreen (talk) 07:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 03:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 09:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's WP:LISTCRUFT, of no encyclopedical value, and would need to be constantly updated Kraxler (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2015 (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.