Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARC Weekly Top 40

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 all. JohnCD (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ARC Weekly Top 40

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

I can't find any specific information about this chart: how it's tabulated, who's in charge of it, et cetera. Much like the United World Chart, this chart seems to be made by mystery men. Surprisingly, there are only two hits in all of GNews for it, both mentioning only that a song went so high on the chart. The fact that there is no information that explicitly tells the history of a 30-year-old music chart is very, very telling. It therefore fails WP:GNG for lack of non-trivial coverage. If the media can't even be bothered to recognize this chart, then it most certainly must not be notable.

Note: There are a whole bunch of subpages associated with this, all of which are listed at Template:ARCTop40hits and are tagged for AFD here:

There are also List of number-one hits on the ARC Weekly Top 40 Chart (United States) and List of artists who reached number one on the ARC Weekly Top 40 (U.S.), as well as associated categories and a template. I will get to those as well. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What does ARC stand for? Maybe notability is found under full name. I tried looking for 'America Radio Charts', 'Airplay Radio Charts' without much success. SunCreator (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could find no none trivial sources for this article. DISCLOSURE, have been brought to this topic by Campaigning via this. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly think that's campaigining. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"This should definitely be deleted." is far from neutral. SunCreator (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, yeah, it was. Still. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was confusing this with some other Top 40 chart and therefore didn't realise it was so...flaky. I think I was mixing it up with the R&R charts? Anyway, this chart doesn't mean notability/verifiability standards. SKS (talk) 05:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All as this list fails WP:NOT#MIRROR as it is a reguritation of the ARC website and lacks any evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe that the articles are all well-written, free of vandalism, and, while the history of the chart is unknown, it does definitely exist and has caused no problems having Wikipedia entries thus far. Lots of work has gone into these articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LancerEvolution ; (talk • contribs) 19:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of which is a reason to keep. Simply being a cleanly written article isn't enough. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it was Billboard, I would keep it, but it doesn't seem truly notable. AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was waiting for this. This chart is clearly a fan-made chart, not any sort of official compilation at all. 174.92.84.91 (talk) 04:59, 28 February 2010 (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.