Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed artists on Spotify

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 keep. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-followed artists on Spotify

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

CSD declined as "simple stats/tables are not a cv". Article is 100% copied from https://chartmasters.org/spotify-most-followed-artists/ which is copyrighted ChartMasters © Copyright All right reserved. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. No mention of how the statistics were created or even as of when the data was generated. Vexations (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So long as the data is just reporting fact and not somehow creatively generated or organized, it isn't copyrightable. The verifiability and notability issues are better to focus on (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Instagram accounts (3rd nomination) for a possibly relevant comparison), with notability factoring in on whether this could just be summarized in the main article with perhaps the top several mentioned. postdlf (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:NLIST due to significant coverage of this grouping. None of the copyrightable material is replicated from the ChartMasters page, and actually the figures are different. SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the equivalent content should probably be taken out of List of most-streamed artists on Spotify and merged with this article. SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SailingInABathTub, https://www.google.com/search?q=most+followed+artists+on+spotify is not significant coverage of the grouping. If you want to show that significant coverage exists, cite the actual article, book where that content is published. Vexations (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

- SailingInABathTub, and this passes for "significant coverage"? It's just more of the same, absent any analysis, insight, commentary or what we otherwise expect of a secondary source. Vexations (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sources do offer further insight and commentary (such as 2 and 3), but to be notable the list just needs to be discussed as a group per WP:NLIST. Notability guidelines do not apply to lists per WP:NNC. SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Debated a bit whether keeping or merging was most appropriate, but concluded that a merged list would likely get unwieldy. This is a significant grouping that are discussed in tandem with one another (see links given), and the copyright argument advanced by the nominator is inapplicable. Vaticidalprophet 10:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the copyright issue has been covered above. Passes WP:NLIST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I looked into how this data is generated. Spotify provides an API that lets you access their data, and number of followers is trivially easy to get. I found that Ed Sheeran, the one listed as #1 had 77,932,941 followers when I ran the query, instead of the 77.74 million in our list. That's already 192,946 followers different. This changes every day. And while it would be simple to just pull that data directly from Spotify, we instead decide that we source it to a "reliable source" (really just someone who also ran a database query) and then manually insert that data ourselves. By hand. That is a lot of work. If you decide to keep this article, you ought to be willing to, or believe that someone is willing to, keep it updated. Most lists are relatively stable; but this one is guaranteed to change constantly. That's a lot of (unnecessary) maintenance work we're taking on. Are you sure you want to do that? Vexations (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The only source cited is Chartmaters.org and is a reference listed as website to avoid. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 05:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of most-streamed artists on Spotify - I update it daily. There's already a section covering the most followed artists and it has 20 entries, which is doable. Updating 100 a day is simply too much. And articles like the ones mentioned above usually only mention top 10 or 20. - Ïvana (talk) 05:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ChartMasters is unreliable per WP:CHARTS#Websites to avoid, so until multiple, reliable sources are implemented into the article (making it pass GNG and other notability guidelines), it should be redirected to List of most-streamed artists on Spotify. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 02:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:NLIST and GNG as per all and current available coverage. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the topic of this list is covered in a group by reliable sources, so that is enough. No issue with keeping this. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Spiderone, is it? I see no evidence of that.a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources that means there is a topic "followed artists on Spotify" that has received significant coverage. Does that exist? All I see is the same data published in different sources, but acquired from Spotify though its API. Nobody else has a way of generating that data. Also, note that at the moment, the article cites no sources at all. Vexations (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2021 (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.