section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see
Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on
notable subjects and should provide references to
reliable sources that
verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{ the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for
speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
BigDunc (
talk ) 21:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[ reply ]
A
a/
c ) 01:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
[ reply ]
I have nominated
a/
c ) 04:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
[ reply ]
Hi McMare's ! Thank you for having created an article about the French number-one hits of 1955. However, the number-one singles given on the Infodisc website are not official : it is a compilation from various charts, including airplays. The official chart, compiled by the SNEP , has been created in France on November 4 , 1984 , and these charts are available on Lescharts.com . As a result, I think it is better to stop creating the list of number-one hits before 1984. PS: Sorry for my bad English, it is not my native language ! Regards, Europe22 (talk ) 00:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[ reply ]
I understand your reasoning, but the number-one hits given by Infodisc, being unofficial, must be considered with caution. For example, if you look carefully, number-one singles given after November 4, 1984 are sometimes different from those given by the SNEP. This could be a source of mistake for readers (when we say "a French number-one single", that generally means : "a number-one single on the Top 50, then the Top 100 (since 1998)", in other words, the chart established by the SNEP). Personally, I think it would be better to create a list of official number one hits in Sweden , Norway , Denmark or Portugal , for example (there are no list of number-one hits in these countries on Wikipedia), respectively available on Swedishcharts.com , Norwegiancharts.com , Danishcharts.com , Portuguescharts.com . Or you can continue creating lists of Ultratop 40 number-one singles (Belgium Wallonia) as you have done about two months ago ? ;-) Sincerely, Europe22 (talk ) 01:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[ reply ]
A page that you have been involved in editing,
]
I have nominated Number-one hits of 2001 (Argentina) , an article you created, for deletion . I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Number-one hits of 2001 (Argentina) . Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP ) 20:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP ) 20:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[ reply ]
Please do not add the Brazil Hot 100, or any other chart listed at
WP:BADCHARTS, to any Wikipedia articles. Thank you.—
Kww (
talk ) 15:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
[ reply ]
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --
Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 15:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
[ reply ]
Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources , as you did to Sale el Sol . Before making any potentially controversial edits , it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 15:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[ reply ]
I have once again reverted your edits as you had replaced a highly reliable source (BBC) with two weakly (if not unreliable) Spanish language sources. The only one of your three sources, Sony Japan, claims 60 million in album sales only, which is not realistic for Shakira. Shakira may have sold 60 million records, that is Singles, Albums, Videos combined, but albums only is not logical. Since I see that you are not at all familiar how that page is operated, I'm going to ask you to discuss your sources at the talk-page before submitting them. Regards.--Harout72 (talk ) 17:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[ reply ]
Hey my friend, those two milestones you added to the Billboard 200 belong on Shakira's page and not on the Billboard 200 because there are many other feats that other artists have accomplished in terms of sales that it would be unrealistic to add them all.
The milestones on the Billboard 200 are supposed to be condensed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eternal Waves (talk • contribs ) 03:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC) [ reply ]
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the
new page patrollers
. Please remember:
If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing!HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[ reply ]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
]
The article List of number-one hits of 1953 (Germany) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
single charts in Germany start in 1954 → this list is incorrect/unneccesary, cf de:Wikipedia_Diskussion:Redaktion_Musik#Liste_der_Nummer-eins-Hits_in_Deutschland_(1953) –IWL 04 • 16:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be
deleted for any of several reasons
.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page .
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process , but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the talk) 10:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
[ reply ]