I'd suggest merging Number one modern rock hits of 1988 and Number one modern rock hits of 1989 into this article. Since their content is covered in this article, it seems reasonable for them to be merged. The Joel Whitburn book source already acts as a reference for all the chart information (artist, title, reached number one, weeks at number one)—though the individual Billboard website sources found in the '88/'89 articles could be incorporated into this article if people have a problem with their absence. Other than that, the presence of these two short lists no longer seems to be necessary. At the same time, perhaps the remaining yearly lists of number-ones could be merged into the lists for their respective decades. Holiday56 (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose: This was also discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Number one modern rock hits of 1988. - eo (talk) 11:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Support merge. The AfD was closed as keep because it was determined that a merge discussion was the more appropriate avenue to take rather than deletion. This a content fork and needs to be resolved. It doesn't matter which came first. It's horrible that we have to have both List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2000s and List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2000 only because a consensus could not be reached. The yearly lists for the modern rock/alternative chart, especially for its first two years, are inadequate and poorly done compared to the well-sourced and better formatted combined list with a superior intro. If there are issues with the layout let's work on those rather than live with identical content presented two ways. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Obvious support Nergaal (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
