Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 2023: These lists exclusively rely on the primary source that is Billboard and does not include third-party sources to discuss their significance.  I suggest deleting or merging all of the articles in the template {{ Hot 100 year-end charts }} into the article Billboard Year-End .  Ippantekina ( talk ) 06:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Popular culture .  Ippantekina ( talk ) 06:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Merging all of the "of (year)" pages into one existing article does not seem practical to me.  Including the (100 singles/year * 50+ years =) 5,000+ lines of chart data, that would run counter to Wikipedia's SOP of splitting up overly long lists.  And it looks to me like the remainder of these pages' contents rely too much on the chart data for context to be worth keeping without it.  - 2A02:560:5821:6C00:B5A6:42B4:CE4F:FEE0 ( talk ) 13:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If merging is not a viable option then I believe deleting them altogether is fine, as per WP:NOTDATABASE .  Readers can go directly to the Billboard website to retrieve this kind of information and not Wikipedia.  Ippantekina ( talk ) 02:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The website isn't much use, unfortunately.  Most of the historical charts were never digitized, presumably, and in turn much of what was is now paywalled.  The primary ref for the majority of the pages in question are scans of the corresponding print magazines, hosted at Google Books and other such archival sites.  That, combined with the direct links to the articles about each artist and work, does make the "Wikipedia editions" of the charts much more user-friendly than any others I'm aware of.  I don't know that that's greatly relevant to your case, though... - 2A02:560:5821:6C00:3044:FC82:C927:A607 ( talk ) 09:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , falls under none of the four bullet points mentioned at WP:NOTDATABASE , not any "spririt of the rule" I can see.  Mach61 ( talk ) 19:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  As a user who frequents this type of articles, this is the only place that keeps this information alive in a reliable way, since the Billboard website contains only the information of some more recent years and as already mentioned the rest is from archives of printed magazines.  The idea of these lists to some extent is to summarize the best commercially performing songs for each year, so I see it as more valuable information than just a database.  I am open to talk about on how to improve the only-primary sources issue.  DiegoF 1996 ( talk ) 21:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe something like this: List of Billboard number-one singles § Sources - 2A02:560:5821:6C00:B140:3122:2709:15F2 ( talk ) 08:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Analysis of the availability of independent source material about these subjects would be quite helpful.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep While this does look like directory, it is still encyclopaedic.  NavjotSR ( talk ) 05:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is an interesting article, and the other year-end articles are not even candidates for deletion.  Plankton5165 ( talk ) 04:39, 27 February 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep