Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zero-hit wonder

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 19:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zero-hit wonder[edit]

Delete, there is no such thing as "Zero-hit wonder. Kelisfan2k5 stop removing this off the votes for deletion. (listed by a helpful anon 66.91.63.100)

  • Keep Wikipedia is not paper. This is a harmless Wikipedia article. If you delete this, then you might as well delete: Two-hit wonders in the United States and Goomba. Sure it's a little crufty, but it's not harming Wikipedia. ZzZ 05:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • User's 5th edit, all today. VfD has become invaded with both pro- and con-deletion sockpuppets today. RickK 06:44, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. First of all, the term zero-hit wonder is a little self contradictory - what is so wondrous about a band without a hit? Secondly, the given criteria for listing is arbitrary and seems by it's very definition POV. Thirdly, the term "zero-hit wonder" racks up a less than wonderous 27 hits on Google [1]. I woudln't call this entry a little crufty - I'd call it useless and unencyclopedic. Arkyan 05:39, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to No-hit wonder, which does somewhat better on the Google test. But -->Keep<--. I was surprised that some listed band had never had a top-40 hit, so there's something to be said for the concept of a band that is widely known and yet hasn't had a single. -- 8^D gab 05:48, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
    • (wanted to be sure my vote did not get lost in the shuffle, being off to the side and all) -- 8^D gab 06:49, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. Andrew pmk 06:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete A "no-hit wonder" and a zero-hit wonder are different things. A no-hit is a band that plays all right, but never made it to the charts, likely something popular in a specific genre of music, but without enough mainstream backing to crack the charts. A "Zero-Hit Wonder" sounds like someone's ploy to make it onto wikipedia with an article. Similar enough to make it, but not actually a real or useful article. --TheAdversary 06:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • New user, all of whose edits were either to VfD pages or the creation of VfD pages. RickK 06:45, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • Why, exactly, would someone need a"ploy" to "make it onto wikipedia with an article"? There are thousands of articles that need writing - just look at Wikipedia:Most wanted articles for a starter. -- 8^D gab 06:59, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
        • I assume he means that it's a ploy for the bands to make it onto Wikipedia, since band vanity articles are routinely deleted per WP:NMG. (The bands in this list, however, meet criterion 1.) No vote from me. —Korath (Talk) 10:28, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems like the article creator arbitrarily made up the term. Everyone knows intuitively what a one-hit wonder is... but saying a zero-hit (or two-hit) falls between X and Y on the charts is NOT intuitive. Feco 07:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. --Angr/comhrá 08:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Look at the Criteria for Inclusion. I don't have exact numbers, but (knowing what a small percentage of songs hit the Billboard Top 40) if you add bands from Billboard's bottom 60 and/or the American Top 40 and/or the Radio & Records CHR you get . . . . a lot of songs. At that point we might as well just dump the entire history of the Billboard Hot 100 onto a huge list. Wikipedia is not paper, but it's also not a general knowledge base. Soundguy99 11:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to No-hit wonder, but change the criteria for inclusion to only include artists COMMONLY thought of as one-hit wonders. --KelisFan2K5 13:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Above user is the entry's original author. Arkyan 14:53, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • And KElisFan2K5 has seen fit to blank the page, which I have reverted and suggested to the User is not an appropriate action. RickK 21:34, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The definition makes no sense as anyone who manages to get a song in the Top 100 is considered to have had a hit. Impossible to maintain since there are no doubt thousands of performers that were "zero hit wonders". 23skidoo 14:45, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, contradictory definition (and most bands that are zero-hit wonders would fall below the band inclusion guidelines). Radiant_* 15:07, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable —Wahoofive | Talk 17:57, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism, etymology-cruft. --InShaneee 19:28, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this article. Any info/comment presented in this can be added to the individual band pages and One-hit wonder can be corrected if they are incorrectly listed there. --Fuzzball! (talk) 20:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — The only criteria that would make any sense for something like this is if the artists have a substantial body of popular work but never actually had a major singles hit. — RJH 03:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable, unmanagable, cruft. Megan1967 04:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete CDC (talk) 05:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism, scope too broad. Dave the Red (talk) 05:36, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism. As well, it presents an open opportunity for bands/artists who fail to meet guidelines to list themselves in the article. My father and brother were both in bands that played for various periods of time but never had a hit or made a record. Most bands don't so nothing notable about them. Capitalistroadster 10:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is meant to document existing phenomena, not create new ones. While I think that the concept is interesting, it is far too vague to ever be encyclopedic. "Zero Hit Wonder" gets 28 hits on Google. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 01:02, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Gotta say delete this one - setting up our own criteria is simply original research. Rhobite 05:24, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful information. Grue 06:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism/trivial. -- Dcfleck 13:12, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is no such thing as a "Zero Hit Wonder," as the helpful anon said. Carolaman
  • Delete. Neologism. CatCrofts 05:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-existent wordcruft. ComCat 06:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Neologism. Xezbeth 18:50, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Wiki aint paper. It's an extant concept. Klonimus 07:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zero-hit_wonder&oldid=1138708216"