List of number-one hits of 1962 (Peru): Mach61 15:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Peru .  Mach61 15:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  Mach61 16:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:CHARTS makes no mention of La Prensa or any other Peruvian charts, so I'm not sure this data would even be considered reliable to begin with.  Also worth noting that if these are deleted, {{ PeruvianNumber1s }} also needs to go as it will be entirely redlinks.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 00:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If data come from Billboard they are certainly reliable (see WP:CHARTS#Suitable charts#1 ), if they come from La Prensa very likely too (also per Suitable charts#1), but as per the nomination the current reference is blatantly unrelated as points to an article about Aretha Franklin.  -- C avarrone 23:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I looked into it because I do know that in Perú we've had charts for many decades.  The articles nominated are badly sourced and don't have the true information about the songs that topped the charts but I was able to find sources like this one from Billboard Magazine that has a chart from Perú in their "Hits of the World" section on page 28.  The source also credits "La Prensa" as the publisher of the chart so the information on the articles isn't actually false, it's just not properly source.  We can add some page curation tags to the articles and I can fix them up with reliable sources.  I can also share this articles with other Peruvian editors and editors who are part of the Latin Music Project to see if any of them are interested in helping me out with this.  FanDePopLatino ( talk ) 14:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ FanDePopLatino Normally I would agree that merely lacking sources is not reason enough to delete a page if they can be found, but I think this sort of list is an exception to that rule.  This is about a very specific subject for which there is only one type of source available (old back-catalog editions of Billboard or La Parenta ), written by an active editor who should have known they'd have to cite their sources, and yet couldn't be bothered to do so.  Without citations, a list like this is useless to someone trying to do research, in a way an uncited prose article is not.  Perhaps these pages can be draftified ?  Mach61 16:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : in principle I'm leaning keep, because the material does seem to be out there.  My concern is whether there is enough to make complete lists at present... it looks like only 11 weeks of the year 1966 are available, for example, which is going to lead to big gaps in the 1966 list unless back copies of La Prensa itself can be located.  Richard3120 ( talk ) 10:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment :@ Mach61 I understand that the editor who created these articles didn't bother to use citations but I have from the moment I was notified of this.  If you look back at the articles now you will see that I already finished 1963, make substantial progress on 1962 and 1966, started a bit on 1964, and have yet to get to 1965 but I plan on it.  Drafting the pages would be an alternative if they still weren't sourced but as you can see, the articles no longer lack relevant citations or violate verifiability so the reasons for the deletion nomination are no longer relevant since those issues have already been addressed and fixed.  FanDePopLatino ( talk ) 16:49, 26 May 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: withdrawn