Talk:List of 2010s one-hit wonders in the United States

Chris Willis - "Gettin' Over You"

An editor with the IP adress 24.191.219.199 has been repeatedly moving Chris Willis, a one-hit wonder for the song "Gettin' Over You", from the section for one-hit wonders who are main artists to the "Featured artist one-hit wonders" section. I, along with some other users, have been reverting this editor's edits while citing reasons for the reversions. However, the editor has been continuously reverting our edits, insisting that he belongs to the "Featured artist one-hit wonders" section with no reasons other than "...its not on his album its not his song" [sic].

I'm just here to enumerate the reasons as to why he belongs to the main section:

• Billboard credited him as a main artist on their chart listings of the song. This Billboard link clearly shows Willis being credited as a main artist; the artists of the song are credited to "David Guetta & Chris Willis Featuring Fergie & LMFAO". As Billboard chart listings are the main source this entire article is based on, it's pretty reasonable to say that Willis does not belong in the "Featured artist one-hit wonders" section, but rather in the section for main artists.

Here are some additional reasons that can be cited:

• The single is also credited to "David Guetta & Chris Willis Featuring Fergie & LMFAO". Note that "Gettin' Over You" should not be confused with Guetta's other song "Gettin' Over", which also features Chris Willis. It is on this song that Willis is credited as a featured artist.
• 24.191.219.199's argument supporting his her edits is flawed. Just because the song appears on Guetta's album does not automatically mean that Willis is demoted to a featured artist. Other duets in music history only appear on one of the main artist's albums, e.g. "I Knew You Were Waiting (For Me)" and "Scream".

Holiday56 (talk) 02:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all I'm a girl!!! and if he is a main artist then why does Billboard not credit him as one in his Chart History? Chart History if he was a main artist it would be shown in his chart history and it doesn't making him a featured artist. even Willis own website says he did vocals on David Guetta's song Bio

24.191.219.199 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.219.199 (talk) 05:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Does that really warrant his inclusion in the featured artists section? The Billboard website simply didn't list down all of his charting entries. I could say, for example, that his name should be removed entirely from this article, simply because "Gettin' Over You" doesn't show up in the chart history for his page. The website isn't completely accurate with regards to listing down chart histories; using the example of "I Knew You Were Waiting (For Me)", the song doesn't appear on both George Michael and Aretha Franklin's individual chart histories, despite hitting #1 on the Hot 100 in 1987. As I've said before, Billboard (not limited to Billboard.com; including Billboard.biz, api.billboard.com, Billboard books and magazines) is the main source we use for compiling all of this data, including qualifications for one-hit wonder status, artists, chart peaks and dates. And I have yet to see any Billboard source that clearly states that the single was listed on the charts with Willis credited as a featured artist (e.g. "David Guetta featuring Chris Willis, Fergie and LMFAO"). Holiday56 (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with the girl I don't see what makes him a main artist. whats the difference between a featured artist and a and artist? in both cases they are two artists singing together it's common in this day and age. I agree he should be in the featured artist section, it would be different if the song was for a movie soundtrack then it wouldn't be off one person's album and would make him a main artist along with everyone else. and your examples aren't that good because they aren't one hit wonders. Dman41689 (talk) 06:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"Main artist" refers to the person getting the leading credit on a song. The featured artists are split from the main artists section for better listing.

"your examples aren't that good because they aren't one hit wonders." - Doesn't matter if they're not one-hit wonders. I cited these songs as examples because like in "Gettin' Over You", two artists both get equal credit as main artists.

Just because the song was only featured on one of the artists' albums does not mean all other artists credited on the song are immediately considered featured artists instead. I'll bring another example up (and it doesn't matter if the example does not pertain to a one-hit wonder). "Forever" by Drake featuring Kanye West, Lil Wayne and Eminem was first featured on the soundtrack to the film More Than a Game. The track listing of the More Than a Game clearly credits the artists of the single as: "Drake featuring Kanye West, Lil Wayne and Eminem". The single cover for the track also lists them in this manner. Later, the song also appeared on Eminem's Relapse: Refill. Does that mean that despite all the evidence pointing against it, Eminem should be moved up to main artist credit? I don't think so.

And really, you're missing the whole point here. Billboard credited Chris Willis as a main artist. As Billboard is the main source of all data regarding charts, which is vital in the entire process of editing one-hit wonder articles, we follow the way Billboard credits song titles and artists. If Billboard had listed Chris Willis as a featured artist, then I would gladly move him into the featured artists section. But they didn't. Holiday56 (talk) 09:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I still don't see any difference between featured or and artist its the same either way. it's just worded differently, and if we but Willis up their shouldn't we put Neil Patrick Harris up their since his song was a duet between him and Matthew Morrison? I mean the song is just the two of them. and it doesn't matter where you put Willis hes only going to be remembered for doing songs with David Guetta and not by himself.

Dman41689 (talk) 07:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop editing the description of the "Featured Artists" section to claim it lists the "featured" or "and" artists. All of the artists in this section are listed as "with" or "featuring"; artists whose only hit was on either side of the "and" are listed in the appropriate year section. Whether you agree with the listing of one particular artist that way or not, saying that "and" artists are listed in the featured section is quite simply wrong. (This applies to the same sections in the 2000s, 1990s, and 1980s lists as well) 68.239.232.169 (talk) 11:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

hey it always said that you think just because you use two different accounts people are going to listen to you? the whole point we have the featured artist section is for anyone in a collaboration that means featured, with, or or. the only people that should be up their are people that are by themselves. the only way it be different is if both the main and featured artists had one hit. Willis is not by himeself thats why he should go down their. you're the only person who thinks he should be up their.24.191.219.199 (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between "featured" and "and":

From the article for "Featuring": Featuring (often abbreviated to ft., feat., or f/) is a term used in the music industry to credit a musician who is not the main artist for their performance on a song.

I don't see "and" listed as a variation of "featuring", and that's the way it should be. They're two different terms. When two artists are split with "and", they both act as main artists on the track. To further my point that "featuring" and "and" are two different terms, in some cases (e.g. "Lift Off"), both terms are used in crediting artists.

Because both terms are different, singles where the artist acts as a main artist and as a featured artist are split into two categories, such as in artist single templates (example) and discographies (example). For the same reason, we split them up in these one-hit wonder list articles.

"you're the only person who thinks he should be up their." - Not quite. 68.239.232.169 and I are two different people; also, if you look at the history for this article, other editors agree with what I'm saying. Holiday56 (talk) 09:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

the featured artist section is for anyone that is in a collaboration. meaning they are listed after the first artist. in other words they are a guest on that album means they're featured on that song. also this song is a remix that added Fergie and LMFAO that's why it lists him as an "and" artist. the original version lists him as a featured artist. it seems to me that Holiday56 is just a fan giving their bias opinion. 137.125.108.39 (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The featured artist section is for any person who has scored their only hit as a featured artist. Hence the title of the section. Are you implying that only one person can receive main artist credit on a song? Undoubtedly, two artists can share main artist credit; the term "and" signifies that the two artists share an equal level of credit on the song.

As I've said multiple times over the course of this discussion, Billboard determines the qualifications for an artist's one-hit wonder status, and hence we follow their way of crediting the artists, even if a single cover or an album track listing conflicts with the Billboard listing. Albums and original versions do not need to brought up into this discussion when the list only concerns individual songs. Holiday56 (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You Make Me Feel...

The song features Sabi, and the main artists are Cobra Starship. This is Sabi's only top 10 hit so far, so can you add her to the featured artists list?- Speedfish 13 February 2012 20:05 (UTC)

A one-year lag rule is followed before a person can be added to the one-hit wonders list. "You Make Me Feel..." reached its peak on the chart dated September 17, 2011, so we'll have to wait until we can add her. Holiday56 (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, Bizzy Bone, Nipsey Hussle, and Mann were featured on "We Are the World 25 for Haiti", which peaked at #2 on the Hot 100 in 2010. Can you please add them?- Speedfish 15 February 2012 13:18 (UTC)

Billboard listed that song as Artists for Haiti so thats what it is put as on here Dman41689 (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

PSY

Shouldn't PSY's "Gangnam Style" be here? --AndSalx95 (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

A one-year lag rule is followed before a person can be added to the one-hit wonders list. STATic message me! 14:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

And he now, of course, will never be listed. 76.78.3.171 (talk) 03:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Fuckin' Problems peak date?

It's been a year since the song by ASAP Rocky Fuckin' Problems has been released. I want to add it but I don't know the date it peaked into the Top 40. Does anyone have the exact date and a source for it?--Captainmad2 (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

February 16, 2012, peaked at #8.--DepressedPer (talk) 17:49, 28, November 2013 (UTC)

You mean 2013. But do you have a source?--Captainmad2 (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Bandz a Make Her Dance peak date?

when did this song peak into the top 40? it's Juicy J's only top 40 hit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainmad2 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It has been less then a year and he has been a featured artist on multiple top 40 hits including "Dark Horse". About ASAP Rocky, he is one currently, but it has not been a full year since the song's peak. STATic message me! 05:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Cant Hold Us

shouldn't Ray Dalton be in the featured artist one hit wonders list? He's only known for being featured on the top 40 hit Can't Hold Us by Macklemore. I don't know the peak date of the song but it's definitely been a year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainmad2 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The song was origionally released a long time ago, however as you can see by this source, the peak occurred during May 2013. STATic message me! 05:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

2010s hits to add

Far East Movement: Like a G6, Lupe Fiasco: The Show Goes On Cobra Starship: You Make Me Feel, Ellie Goulding: Lights, YC: Racks (Remix), Kreayshawn: Gucci Gucci, AWOLNATION: SAIL Driicky Graham: Snapbacks and Tattoos, Carly Rae Jepsen: Call Me Maybe — Preceding unsigned comment added by ivangbailey (talk • contribs)

@Ivangbailey: For Far East Movement see Rocketeer (song) and Live My Life (song). For Fiasco see Superstar (Lupe Fiasco song) and Out of My Head (Lupe Fiasco song). For Goulding see Burn (Ellie Goulding song). Cobra Starship is already listed. YC's song never reached the top 40. Gucci Gucci never reached the top 40. The next two did not reach the top 40 either and Jepsen has had more than one top 40 hit. Next time do the research before making the post. STATic message me! 06:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Get Lucky

Would "Get Lucky" by Daft Punk technically count? Sorry, I'm new to this but I know that's so far their only top 40 song in the US. 198.45.223.105 (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but you have to wait about three weeks since there's a one year lag period to go by. DepressedPer (talk) 03:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

DAFT PUNK had 2 more hits

AROUND THE WORLD # 61 in 1997

ONE MORE TIME # 61 in 2001

BOTH gold certified by RIAA

plus they had 2 albums

HOMEWORK and DISCOVERY both gold certified by RIAA

how you call them one hit wonders ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.130.33 (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Disclosure

The song by them called Latch has been their only top 40 hit in the US, and it was released back in October 8, 2012, so its definitely been a year. when was the peak date of the song?

The song's peak date is currently July 5 of "this year" in the US. That may change in the upcoming weeks and you'll have to wait a whole year until the pending peak date to edit in on the list.DepressedPer (talk) 19:29, (UTC)

no, i'm asking what the date was when this song FIRST peaked into the top 40. Captainmad2 (talk) (UTC)

The song first peaked on May 24 of this year. Just don't add it yet. DepressedPer (talk) 02:31, (UTC)

U.O.E.N.O.

When did this song by Rocko first peak into the Top 40? Its been a year since it was released. Captainmad2 (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It first peaked at June 8, 2013 at number 38. Wait about a month until the final peak date. DepressedPer (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Redesign of Page

Is this page in the process of being redesigned, or is it completed? If the latter is true, I have to disagree with some of the changes made; namely, the removal of artist footnotes and the featured artist section. I consider those two tables of information essential for the page, giving context to the artists who only have one top 40 hit. Can anyone give an explanation to the removal of those tables? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.199.145.142 (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:List of 1990s one-hit wonders in the United States, the last section at the bottom of the page. DepressedPer (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

N.W.A.

Well, ever since Billboard started including Youtube views and random old songs like "Livin' on a Prayer" and "Only Time" started popping up in the top 40 for a week at a time, I've been waiting for this to happen. We now officially have the first artist to be a one hit wonder because of one of their songs randomly making the top 40 twenty-five years after they were popular when they didn't have any top 40 hits before. I was thinking it would be someone like Judas Priest (they had no top 40 hits) but I guess this works too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.150.49 (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely, I want to congratulate N.W.A for successfully elevating themselves from "one of the greatest and most influential groups in the history of hip hop music" to a "one-hit wonder" 25 years after disbanding.

Seriously, while I understand the criteria for these articles, it is becoming more and more absurd every year. No longer a penguin (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Featured artists on songs by established artists

I'm personally not sure if the list should include featured artists on songs by well-established artists, as the featured artist is not the main emphasis of the song. I also noticed that a few of the listings of one-hit-wonders, such as Nate Ruess and Rivers Cuomo are actually the vocalists of groups with multiple hits, so I'm unsure if those count. Thanks for hearing me out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.242.9 (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

CLEAN BANDIT dismissed from the list

So i was totally wrong and im sorry

CLEAN BANDIT had one hit in the USA with rather BE

it was their sole Hot 100 Entry !

But now as of 2017 we have another hit for the band

ROCKABYE rocketed to #21 on the Hot 100 so far and has gained Platinum status

so it is dismissed from the ONE HIT WONDER status

Im sure they will have more hits in the future — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.99.204 (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

incomplete

Page is still incomplete because musicians Flume and Kai are missing from the list. Their sole hit single is "Never Be Like You" Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

A one year lag peroid is observed. One hit wonders don't be addable to the list until one year after their last top 40 hit. 73.1.57.180 (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on [[List of 2010s one-hit wonders in the US]. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151128175234/http://www.billboard.com/artist/302879/girlicious/chart?f=344 to http:///
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151128175234/http://www.billboard.com/artist/302879/girlicious/chart?f=344 to http:///
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151128175234/http://www.billboard.com/artist/302879/girlicious/chart?f=344 to http:///
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151128175234/http://www.billboard.com/artist/302879/girlicious/chart?f=344 to http:///
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.billboard.com%2F%23%2Fartist%2FRihanna%2Fchart-history%2F658897%3Ff%3D379%26g%3DSingles&date=2011-10-02 to http://https://www.billboard.com/artist/rihanna/chart-history/hot-100/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

There is a clear consensus for:

• 3 – Redirect all seven decade articles back to List of one-hit wonders in the United States while changing the inclusion criteria of the main article from any maths or statistics derivation to instead be a list of artists that have been called one-hit wonders in multiple reliable sources, with two sources cited for each entry.

Cunard (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

I think we must restrict this list to the songs that have been released by artists who have been described in reliable sources as "one-hit wonders". It's not enough to look at an artist's chart history and figure out whether they qualify because only one song charted. That kind of practice violates WP:No original research which is a hard policy, not negotiable.

By the way, the book listed in the bibliography was published in 1998, so it could not possibly be relevant in this article about the 2010s. Binksternet (talk) 04:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Note that discussion here is relevant to the following articles. Binksternet (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• List of one-hit wonders in the United States

• List of 2010s one-hit wonders in the United States
• List of 2000s one-hit wonders in the United States
• List of 1990s one-hit wonders in the United States
• List of 1980s one-hit wonders in the United States
• List of 1970s one-hit wonders in the United States
• List of 1960s one-hit wonders in the United States
• List of 1950s one-hit wonders in the United States

There used to be a series of footnotes included on these One Hit Wonder pages that that denoted whether included artists had hits on other Billboard charts - or had multiple entries on the album charts or Gold or Platinum records - but these were removed several years ago. I'm not sure what the consensus was on removing those footnotes, but getting rid of them had led to the lack of clarification about what this list is supposed to be (these lists also include artists whose only top 40 hit came through a featured credit, with no notice that this is the case). I would suggest adding something like that back to the article. However, "only one top 40 hit" = "one hit wonder" seems to be a common definition for a very nebulous term, and we can certainly find other sources supporting that definition. However, there's also sources like this one that ran in The Village Voice a few years back, and it recommends a completely different definition of "one hit wonder" that would exclude acts like Michael Buble or Jimi Hendrix (who both only have one top 40 entry). I think there should be some kind of footnotes included back on this page to clarify why certain artists are here. Or, should we choose to remove someone like Michael Buble, have something in the article explaining why those artists are not present. However, I would like to include the opinions of some of the editors who maintain this list regularly - of which there are a few - with regards of whether we should change which artists are included here. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Also - I do somewhat support a differentiation of these pages between "an artist with only one top 40 hit" and a "one hit wonder", which I consider to be two very different things (the former is a piece of music geek trivia, the later is a cultural term with very different connotations). This could potentially be done without changing or removing any content from these lists, particularly if the article names where changed. I'm not sure how changing them to something like "List of artists with one Top 40 hit in the United States" would fly, but should this happen, and introduction could certainly be written that would mention that some artists with only one Top 40 hit could be considered one hit wonders. And it should be noted that the term "one hit wonder" is not mutually exclusive to "only one top 40 hit", despite that being a popular definition. There are plenty of examples of artists that are considered one hit wonders, but whose "one hit" never made the Top 40 at all: Bow Wow Wow, Wall of Voodoo, The Weather Girls and Modern English all come to mind. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I like the idea of changing the names of these articles to reflect the content which is based on a simple calculartion rather than the cultural term "one-hit wonder". This change should probably be placed in front of the community at large in the form of a multiple requested move. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the term "one-hit wonder" should be more clarified in the respective articles per decade, as many artists have escaped "one-hit wonder" status by being featured in another artist's Top 40 song and that the names of these list articles should be more specific as people have different interpretations of the term "one-hit wonder". Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 18:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

It's also important to note how some artists in these "one-hit wonder" lists like Blink-182, Fuel, Gorillaz, etc. had smash hits in the respective charts for their genres, hence people don't easily associate them with the term "one-hit wonder" despite them only having one song land within the Top 40. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• I just stumbled by, and was going to mention that the inclusion criteria could use some work too. A lot of these entries don't quite meet what is usually expressed by the concept of a "one hit wonder". Not only do I think someone like Buble would not typically fit the type of artist considered a one-hit wonder, but I don't think one would usually call people like Bono, Steven Tyler, or Rivers Cuomo "one hit wonders" either, considering they're usually considered synonymous with their respective bands. The current setup results in something more like a failed attempt to get a computer program to calculate a one-hit wonder or something. Sergecross73 msg me 17:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Just to confuse things further... early editions of British Hit Singles, the book that used to be the authority on UK charts in the pre-internet days, had a section listing one-hit wonders... and their definition was that the hit had to be a number-one record - see List of one-hit wonders on the UK Singles Chart. Richard3120 (talk) 01:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

While I feel like this is probably too strict in the same way that the current make up is too loose, I also think it would lead to less errors overall. Sergecross73 msg me 14:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• I agree that "one hit wonder" ≠ "one top 40 on the Hot 100". Many artists are one-hit wonders in the literal sense but not the figurative sense, or vice versa. For instance, Rick Springfield has six Top 40 hits, but can you name any of them besides "Jessie's Girl"? Garth Brooks was one of the biggest artists in any genre ever, but he only had one Top 40 pop hit, and under a fake name no less. Big & Rich only hit the Top 40 once, but the song they did it with is nowhere near as famous as "Save a Horse (Ride a Cowboy)". Gorillaz only hit Top 40 once, but even on this side of the pond they have a very high recognition rate. "One hit wonder" is inherently a subjective term, given that the song may be a "hit" either literally or metaphorically. Even "only one entry into the Top 40" can be murky, given how frequently chart methodology was changed over time. Many of the "one hit wonders" of the '90s were because Billboard refused to count songs with no physical release, which rendered many otherwise-popular songs ineligible for that chart. Also, countless artists have only one Top 40 hit as a lead artist, but one or more as a featured artist -- would those count? Perhaps the best solution here is to refactor the list to indicate that its name follows the objective classification of "only one Top 40 hit as a leading artist", while creating a separate "list of one hit wonders" for artists whom multiple reputable sources have identified as a "one hit wonder". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• It gets even further from reality when we split up the topic into separate decades, so that somebody who charted once in each decade would still be listed. I would be fine with completely ditching the current inclusion criteria and instead telling the reader which artists have been described in multiple reliable sources as a one-hit wonder. In that case we would probably not need to split into decades – it could be just one article. Binksternet (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• I strongly support this approach - it will lead to a more accurate list, and will still comply to how Wikipedia usually operates when it comes to lists. Surely there will still be problems, like when some odd music journalist has some hot take about The Smashing Pumpkins or somebody being a one-hit wonder or something, but I'd much rather work through those on a case by case basis rather than use this current list, which is so far removed for what a "one-hit wonder" is usually considered. Sergecross73 msg me 13:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Condensing the choices from the above discussion, should we:

• 1 – Do nothing, the group of articles remains a statistically derived list in seven parts for seven decades, from the 1950s to the 2010s, or
• 2 – Keep the statistics-based inclusion criteria but move all seven articles so that they do not have the culturally distinct term "one-hit wonder" in the article name, or
• 3 – Redirect all seven decade articles back to List of one-hit wonders in the United States while changing the inclusion criteria of the main article from any maths or statistics derivation to instead be a list of artists that have been called one-hit wonders in multiple reliable sources, with two sources cited for each entry.

Binksternet (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• 3. I would like to retain the culturally loaded term "one-hit wonder" but I don't think the statistically derived approach fits very well. Binksternet (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• 3. "Artists with only one Top 40 entry" is chart trivia, which we have too much of as is. Creating a list of artists who have been reliably identified as one hit wonders is a more encyclopedic approach. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• 3 - per my arguments above, as I believe it will be the most accurate means of tracking "one hit wonders" while keeping with Wikipedia's policies and standard type of inclusion criteria for lists. Strongly against option 1, as the current lists are very flawed - as I mentioned above, the current list looks like someone's failed attempt by a computer program or AI to list off "one hit wonder" - its too rigid and filled errors and false positives. (Who in their right minds would call Bono or Steven Tyler a one hit wonder?) Option 2...strikes me as unnecessary. It could be accurately reported, but strikes me as a bizarre set of criteria that no one would be tracking - its rather arbitrary. Sergecross73 msg me 16:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• 3. This sounds like the best option. And it shouldn't be hard to find reliable sources for some acts to be included straight away. (the Village Voice one I linked to at the start of this discussion being a good start. Even that author's personal definition of a one-hit wonder could be something to mention somewhere as one of several definitions.) Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 01:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
• 3 Summoned by a bot - seems to be the most thought out way to track one-hit wonders, based on the discussion above. Comatmebro (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

Comment: This is another improperly hidden AfD discussion. No notice was posted on the affected articles. While a Bot summoned some comments apparently, no effort was made to contact the numerous editors who have contributed to this series of articles, including myself. Instead, only six commenters forced this decision to delete a massive amount of content.Trackinfo (talk) 06:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC) Comment: This discussion is ludacris. There was a lot of hard work behind the series of articles, and it's all thrown away because "one-hit wonder" is a "culturally-loaded" term. What a bunch of crap. 50.111.24.195 (talk) 04:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Reopen the discussion

Today IP user:174.223.133.37 restored all these articles, which was immediately shut down with the suggestion to discuss it here. Above I already commented a year and a half ago about the poorly constructed discussion. Another IP supported me. Since the new IP hasn't brought it up, I will. We obviously have issues with the above, well hidden discussion, which I and other participants in the affected articles, were not notified of and which, thus were not allowed to comment on. Let me be clear, the above discussion had just 7 participants, most of whom were not contributors to those articles. It wiped out a lot of editors' contributions made over more than a decade, my demolished contributions were but a small part of that. So my suggestion is to conduct a proper discussion. NOTIFY ALL THE AFFECTED EDITORS! Since contributions to the articles started in 2005, predating even a long timer like me, maybe you'll get lucky and the people making those contributions will have died off or just quit editing after a mass of their work was unilaterally destroyed. Several histories indicate some are still active. Give them a chance to speak and see if this was a proper consensus. Trackinfo (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)