text:
Talk:List of 1990s one-hit wonders in the United States

2005 discussion
How is Radiohead a one hit wonder? And I swear Better Days came out in 2000. I bought their album on iTunes and iTunes says it was released in 2000. And it's not a "greatest songs" album. --WikiFan04ß 12:20, 30 May 2005 (CDT)

I think this list is VERY subjective, and probably should not be included in an encyclopedia. A lot of artists that were listed on these pages are "no-hit wonders" (removed ones I was sure never had a top 40 pop hit). I think that any artist who had just one top 40 hit on the Hot 100 (other, genre-specific charts don't count) should be listed here. And, possibly, also any artist who had just one appearance between 41 and 100 on the Hot 100, with no other songs charting, could be considered a one-hit wonder.

 * Read Talk:One-hit wonders in the United States. Basically, the rules are:

 * Only one song on the Billboard top 40. The number of hit songs on other charts do not matter.

 * Because there are a lot of well-known album-oriented rock bands who happen to have only one top 40 hit in their career (Rush, Jimi Hendrix, and Grateful Dead, for example), if a band has had three or more top 40 albums, they are not a "One-hit wonder". Samboy 06:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's a dumb rule about album successes. Some one-hit wonders never had a popular album. Some artists manage to sell boatloads of albums without actually having anything resembling a well-known single, if they even release singles at all. It seems like a scapegoat just because people don't like knowing that such "important", "influential", and "well-known" artists like Hendrix, the Grateful Dead, and Rush had only one "hit". If anything, the rule should relate to single successes on OTHER charts (airplay, sales, rock, dance, R&B, etc); but comparing singles to albums is comparing apples to oranges. Technically, Bob Marley is a no-hit wonder in the United States, because his highest-peaking single only went to the mid-50's on the Hot 100. But, recurrently, SEVERAL of his singles have been massive hits on MULTIPLE formats. Hence, what I said about this list being completely subjective and, arguably, not encyclopediac. This list needs to be explained, in the article's content itself--not on some other article's "talk page"--as far as what criteria are being used. Otherwise, uninformed people are going to continue to come here and add no-hit wonders (like you did), and/or remove artists who've only had one pop hit just because they had more hits at other formats. Also, does lack of a top 40 Hot 100 hit definitely make an artist a no-hit wonder? I'm not so sure...68.44.184.172 03:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The issue is not that Grateful Dead, Hendrix, and Rush only having one hit; this issue is calling them "One Hit Wonders", which implies their musical success is tied to their one top-40 charting song. If this was called "Artists and Bands with one Billboard top 40 single" instead of "One hit wonders", then, yes, I would have no problem with Hendrix, Grateful Dead, and Rush being on the list.  But, it is a list of "One hit wonders", which means something different than an "Artists or Bands with one Billboard top 40 single".  Samboy 21:10, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I have to agree, particularly with the "it is a list of "One hit wonders", which means something different than an "Artists or Bands with one Billboard top 40 single" statement. I think if an artist or band has had lots of other success which totally dwarfs their one hit in terms of significance and recognition then there's no way they can be termed a "one-hit wonder".  Many one hit wonders are quite well respected artists and released albums after their hit which were successful, but they are still overall better known for their one hit (i.e. Digable Planets) and so can still be reasonably dubbed one-hit wonders.  Whereas with Rush, the Dead and Hendrix, they are very obviously far better known for their success elsewhere than for their success with their one hit.  It has nothing to do with "not liking knowing" that my favorite bands only had one hit either; I don't care for the Grateful Dead and I absolutely loathe Rush, but I still feel terming them one-hit wonders is just silly.  --Jamieli 22:20, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * There are actually a good number of artists being listed as One-Hit wonders that I would remove from the list if I did not restrain myself. Such as Vangelis, who only had one top-40 hit (a #1, to boot), but has a lot of great albums and did the Blade Runner soundtrack.  Or Moby, who has also only had one top-40 hit, but has contributed much more to music.  In the case of Vangelis, there is a chance a lot of people might only remember Chariots of Fire; and Moby's success is limited to a single genere.  So I'm leaving these artist on the list--with protest. Samboy 03:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * It is very hard to judge. Even from a perceived/stereotypical one-hit wonders P.O.V., I wouldn't know what to make of Moby.  "Southside" is unquestionably his BIGGEST single.  It was one of 2001's biggest hits on several formats, including rock, alterative, dance, adult top 40, top 40 mainstream, and possibly even rhythmic top 40.  But, then again, what is to be made of a song like "Bodyrock", which was originally sort of a cult/club hit, then became a mainstream rock hit, and then, after being featured in a commercial, sort of crossed over and had some pop success?  I can recall "Porcelain" receiving support from adult top 40 stations, so it likely peaked in the top 40 at that format.  The "Porcelain" and "Natural Blues" videos were played in light regular rotation on VH1 a year before "Southside" became a bona fide hit, which suggests that both songs had at least MINOR AC/adult top 40 support.  (I honestly think early 2000 was a time when Moby's more chill/ambient material was almost being marketed as AC-type material and Moby an AC-leaning, new agey sort of artist, along the lines of Enya, after many of those songs had been used in high-end car commercials and everything else.)  Then there's his string of rock/alt radio hits, with both recent albums, as well as his string of dance/club hits and remixes with both albums.  To boot, all of Play's songs were featured in at least one American commercial, which gave people even more familiarity with Moby and his work, again well before "Southside" hit big.  So middle America and even CHR-listening, teenage girls might perceive "Bodyrock", "Natural Blues", "Honey", etc, as having been bigger than they really were at the pop formats because listeners might have heard the songs once or twice on their local CHR stations but heard them several times on various commercials.  Without any steadfast rules, I wouldn't even know where to begin with Moby's perceived status: is he a one-hit wonder or a somewhat underground artist who has had a string of "minor hits", one of which was slightly bigger than the others?68.44.184.172 05:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * As far as I am concerned, I perceive Vangelis as nothing but a one-hit wonder, even if his one hit was a real "hit". I can't remember the first time I heard "Chariots Of Fire"; it seems to have just always been around in one place or another.  I guess I sort of originally thought it was some sort of classical work.  And, before I had realized that it was an 80's single/music video, I considered it alongside common classical pieces that you always hear as background in movies, TV shows, or commercials.  At this point, needless to say, I didn't consider the song to have been made by a one-hit wonder.  It wasn't until I saw the video on VH1 some time during the 1990's that I realized that it was an 80's pop song and single as opposed to a 18th century classical piece.  I only recently discovered (thanks to MusicChoice factoids) that Vangelis was a solo Greek pop star, as opposed to some sort of group of people who electronically sampled classical work or released work solely comprised of classical instrumentation.  All that I know about him to date is that he was a popular Greek pop star in the 1980's, basically only big in Greece, and his song "Chariots Of Fire".  If it even hit the top 40 (or is it just rememebered because it was used in movies and was such an unusual pop song?), then it's definitely a one-hit.68.44.184.172 05:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sublime
This may be due to lack of maintenance on wiki pages, but sublime is not a one hit wonder, and several artists listed on this page have made more than one hit song. 8==D  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.20.137.169 (talk) 09:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Fiona Apple
Removed 'Criminal', since Fiona Apple now has 3 top 40 albums
 * This list is about singles, not albums. Billboard's records show that she has had one top 40 hit to date; this means she's been re-added. - Thanks, Hoshie 09:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Mighty Mighty Bosstones
They arn't really one hit wonders, other songs such as Kinder Words, and Someday I Supose enjoyed success on modern rock radio.

I removed them - they never had a top 40 hit. Teemu08 21:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

They did---according to the Billboard Book of Top 40 hits. RomeoVoid 03:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It was a top 40 hit on the Modern Rock charts, but not on the Billboard Hot 100, which is the main chart. See Here Teemu08 04:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The Billboard Book Of Top 40 hits only charts those songs that hit the Top 40 on the Billboard Hot 100 (i own a copy, they're in there alright). Add them back to the list "Artists with one hit that are not necessarily considered one-hit wonders" Doc Strange 13:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hanson
Hanson doesn't belong, they also hit top 40 with Where's The Love, if I'm not mistaken. Their albums may also qualify, but I'm not entirely certain how it would be tracked as they are currently on their own indies label.

That is why Hanson is not on the list. RomeoVoid 22:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Iggy Pop, and Queen Latifah are one-hit wonders..
In the US they never had anything bigger than a cult following. RomeoVoid 22:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and that's why their in the "Not One Hit Wonder" section. Check the talk page for 2000's one hit wonders for my "pep-talk" on that topic. Doc Strange 13:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The offspring as well, They are far from a one hit wonder. Pretty fly for a white guy and get a job are two other hits they had, and that is just to name two. (98.222.180.71 (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC))

Adina Howard
Is not a one-hit wonder.

"Freak Like Me" #2

"What's Love Got To Do With It" w/ Warren G #32

Dam!ta 16:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Technically, "What's Love Got To Do With It" was performed with Warren G. featuring Adina Howard, so it could go either way. Teemu08 03:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits, she has two top 40 singles. Timeaftertimecl 16:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A Change Of Standards?
Looking at this list, I can see a few acts who by the definition provided meet the criteria for inclusion on the list, but in all reality would never be considered a one hit wonder. For instance, The Prodigy. Yes, according to All Music Guide they meet the criteria, but if you called them a one hit wonder, anyone who watched MTV in the 90s would tell you are insane. How about The Flaming Lips. Yeah, they only had one charting hit, but having them listed kind of kills the credibility for this list.

The problem is that the list only considers one aspect of charting. I would say if a band has been on a major label or a signifigant indie label (I can't think of a better word for it, but if anyone can give a better definition for it, please do so) for more than 2 albums after that one hit, then it would be safe to delete them (since that means they are selling enough albums to be worth having in the label).

The term one hit wonder implies that the band was on the radar, and then disappeared. A band like The Flaming Lips for instance, has done anything but disappeared. OMC however, has. We have to consider if we are only looking at the wrong aspect of charting.

Should we also expand it to the modern and mainstream rock charts and other 'specialty' charts as well (simply say that if you have a top 20 hit on those charts for instance) so some of these bands who are popular to one segment don't get listed.

I removed the Flaming Lips. RomeoVoid 03:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Beenie Man
Took him off the list since there's really no standard by which he'd be a one hit wonder ("Dude" comes to mind as another hit besides the listed "Who Am I")

However, I have to question, if you're letting the connotation of one hit wonder influence which artists are on here (e.g., including the album rule to exclude certain groups), just how useful is this list? Seems slightly POV if you can arbitrarily invent definitions for what constitutes a one-hit wonder past having only one hit. GassyGuy 20:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Queen Pen?
She had a number one hit with NO DIGGITY featuring BlackStreet and Dr. Dre. She is not a one-hit wonder. Dam!ta 03:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Reformatting
I decided to be WP:BOLD and reformat the list to be more in line with the analogous 1970s and 1980s articles. I don't know enough about 1990s one-hit wonders to categorize all of them, but I've left room for others to follow... — Dale Arnett 15:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Craig Mack
Craig had two top 40 hits on the Billboard Hot 100, therefor is removed from the list. The single "Get Down" was also certified Gold for sales of 500,000 copies.

Watley54 21:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1994 Flava in Ya Ear   The Billboard Hot 100 9
 * 1994 Get Down   The Billboard Hot 100 38

Chante Moore== ==

Went #10 with Chante's Got a Man and #19 with Contagious (song) as a featured artist.Watley54 13:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Chante Moore== ==

Went #10 with Chante's Got a Man and #19 with Contagious (song) as a featured artist.Watley54 13:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No, she still is a one-hit wonder. I've got a copy of The Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits by Joel Whitburn, which says that "Chante's Got a Man" was her only Top 40 hit. "Contagious" is listed under R. Kelly and The Isley Brothers, but not under Chante Moore's name; there is, however, a small note saying that she did back-up vocals. Holiday56 (talk) 12:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Candy Dulfer
I wonder if she should be in the "not necessarily" segment as I think she kept producing things significant to the smooth jazz world.--T. Anthony 09:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Tonic
Tonic are listed here for "If You Could Only See". How can they be considered a one-hit wonder for this one when they are best known for their song "You Wanted More"? Wiwaxia 01:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What? What? "You Wanted More"? Geez, i've never heard that song. Ever. "If You Could Only See" was a Top-40 hit, where as "You Wanted More" was (and I just found out what it was) was a single (and a quite unsuccessful one) that didn't even come near the Top-40. Doc Strange 12:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Suicidal Tendencies and Anthrax
Gosh, neither of those songs ever hit the Top 40. And even on the Mainstream and Modern Rock charts, "Asleep At The Wheel" was a bigger hit for Suicidal. Doc Strange 13:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, i'm deleting the following
 * "Another Day" by Dream Theater charted at #22...on the Mainstream Rock charts. This is for the Hot 100. Even if you included the Mainstream Rock charts, they wouldn't be eligible anyways becuase they had other hits, including "Pull Me Under" which hit #10 on said chart.
 * "Only" by Anthrax Never and I repeat NEVER have ever had any song hit the Hot 100. "Only" was indeed their biggest hit on the Mainstream Rock charts, but nonetheless are ineligible for this chart
 * "Nobody Hears" by Suicidal Tendencies, as i've stated above, Suicidal had a much larger Mainstream and Modern Rock hits than this track. "Asleep At The Wheel", for instance hit #21 on the Modern Rock charts.

I'm keeping the following Doc Strange 12:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Three Little Pigs" by Green Jelly. This band, which would later evolve into Tool did not have a charting single table on their page
 * "She Don't Use Jelly" by The Flaming Lips. Didn't hit the Top 40, but at least hit the Hot 100.

Aqua
I'm hesitant to mess with the entry myself, but I wanted to note that Aqua are NOT one-hit wonders. Although they're best known for their number 7 Hot 100 hit "Barbie Girl", they also charted at 23 on the same chart with "Lollipop (Candyman)."--97.101.1.246 01:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. You're correct. They're a case like Men Without Hats and a-ha where it is widely believe the act is a one hit wonder, but have another song in the Top 40. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 19:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I placed this tag because several of the wikilinks link to the wrong subject. Anthony Rupert 14:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright
So now every main artist on this list has a Wikipedia entry. Finally. Chubbles 09:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

radiohead
why are they on there?they have had a lot of hits! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharkdude95 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

 * They have been removed due to the fact that "Nude" hit #37 on the Billboard Hot 100 in April 2008. The other American hits before that were on the Modern Rock Tracks chart, not the Billboard Hot 100, the chart on which "one hit wonders" are usually described in the United States. The band has 12 Modern Rock Top 40 hits, but only the two on the Billboard Hot 100. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 21:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Dogs Eye View and Baz Luhrmann
Hello,

Recently this list had Dogs Eye View and Baz Luhrmann listed as one-hit wonders based on how the two acts charted on the Hot 100 Airplay chart. After fact-checking all of the airplay hits on the list, it appears that the acts charted on the Hot 100 but they were both below #40. Here's the data:

Dog's Eye View charted at #65 in September 1996; see. All Music has the listing for the single here.

Baz Luhrmann charted at #45 in April 1999; see. It seems unclear if a single was released in the US. The Billboard page has the words "Album Cut" for the catlog number, which I guess refers to the album Something For Everybody; see. A single exists (see ), but Amazon claims its an import; see. I'm going to do more research on this point. Hope this helps. - Thanks, Hoshie 01:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A short update on Baz Luhrmann. Everybody's Free was not released as a single in the US (see ); however according to our Hot 100 article, the rules were changed in December 1998 to allow album cuts on the chart (see also ), so this appear to have been what happened here. 10:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Somethin' for the People
I added this group to the list probably a year ago, and it's been removed again, for reasons I can't surmise. Someone went absolutely reference-crazy with this article (there's one book you could have used for all of the references, published by Billboard and written by Joel Whitburn), so I won't shoot at any barrels of gunpowder, but the group is missing and should be listed. Chubbles (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi! I'm the one who added all the refs. While I agree the Whitburn book (which I plan to get, because this topic is interesting) is a good source, I've found the database to be just as good and more current. As for the refs, it seems to be the trend now, for better or worse. I've re-added the group you mentioned as they had one top40 hit. - Thanks, Hoshie 09:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Fastball, BSO, Garth Brooks, Dog's Eye View (again)
Hello,

I've recently brought a copy of Joel Whitburn's The Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits referenced in this article. I've used it to reference the chart postions on the list since books are more static compared to the web. This has also reduced the page size somewhat.

I have added a few new artists. The first is Fastball. While "The Way" seems to better known, it didn't chart on the Hot 100. Another single, "Out of My Head" did. See. I have also added the The Brian Setzer Orchestra as they had a hit with "Jump Jive An Wail" peaking at #23 on the Airplay Chart (see ). However it also peaked at #94 on the Hot 100 (see ). I have re-added Dog's Eye View as the Whitburn book lists them for "Everything Falls Apart", which peaked at #14 on the airplay chart (see ). However the song also peaked at #66 on the Hot 100 (see ). I have no idea why both of these are in the book.

This may ruffle a few feathers, but I have added Garth Brooks. So far he has seven songs cross over to the Hot 100. Of these "Lost In You" is the only one to be in the top 40; it peaked at #5 (see ).

It hope this helps. - Thanks, Hoshie 10:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've a few more additions in recent days. First, I've added dc Talk, Cypress Hill, and Clint Black to the list. They seem to be like Iggy Pop: popular in another genre, but not mainstream. This may again ruffle feathers, but I have also added the Los del Río. The Bayside Boys mix of the Macarena went to #1 and this is what the listing is for. The Spanish version also hit the Top 40 as well. This seems to be like Benny Mardones. He had two hits with one song. Someone recently added L.V. for Gangsta's Paradise. While I oppose this, the 2000's page does this well. Since this is the case, I've deleted Vonda Shepard. She had a hit on the top 40 with Dan Hill in the late 80's. Finally I've added Robin S. (with a note telling her apart from Robyn) and Toadies as well. Hope this helps. - Thanks, Hoshie 13:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Fastball was a victim of how in the 90's, record companies tended to stop issuing singles for many songs so people would buy the album. Had they taken radio airplay much more into account, they definitely would have cracked the top 40 with The Way. Believe me, I heard it very frequently back then. Just something to think about. ErikNY (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on same bands being hurt due to their label not releasing a single. Like you, I remember The Way from '98. I didn't realize Out of My Head existed until I brought the album last year. As for The Way charting on the Hot 100, it was impossible. At the time, songs that weren't released as a single (like The Way) were not allowed on the Hot 100. This was changed in late 1998. See for more details. This is why Fastball and Out of My Head are listed here. - Thanks, Hoshie 01:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that it's disingenuous to have here listed a Fastball song I had to look up vs. one I couldn't avoid when I was living through the 90's--the term "One Hit Wonder" may have a special record industry connotations, but to most people I know, Fastball is an OHW for The Way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.35.33 (talk) 23:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've been looking over this list I think it needs a major restructuring as to what this page is actually trying to accomplish. If the goal is to list all the artists who only had one hit in the 1990s, then I am fine with that goal. But I don't think we can use the term "one hit wonder". As we see in this discussion page, "one hit wonder" is a loaded term that has more meaning than simply only had one single chart on Billboard's List. The perceived implication of "one hit wonder" is that the band came into public prominence very quickly and then disappeared just as quickly. Many of these artists on this list do not fit the description. If an artist has a long, sustained career, they shouldn't be on this list. So I'm not sure how Vonda Shepard has been taken off this list, but Garth Brooks and Clint Black belong on it? Garth's wikipedia page states that the RIAA has recognized him as the biggest selling solo artist in U.S. history. So that's a one hit wonder? I don't even like country music, but we cannot make such a distinction. Likewise, if a band had 3 hit singles, but they were all off the same album, and we never heard of them again, wouldn't most of us consider them a one hit wonder? If we use the term "one hit wonder" on a wikipedia page, I'm of the opinion that the term should conform to definition as set out by the wikipedia page for the term. And reading through that page, I don't see how some of these artists apply. Maybe a simple title change would work: something like Artists with only 1 Single on Billboard Charts. That's clumsy, but something similar. Plasticflasks (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

artists with successful albums
Hello again,

The talk page for One-hit wonders in the United States states that in addition to one top 40 hit, an act "with three or more albums with a rank of 1 to 40 inclusive on the Billboard 200 may be taken off of this chart". I have gone though the acts listed found that Sinéad O'Connor, Faith No More, Chris Isaak, Queensrÿche, k.d. lang, Onyx, Cypress Hill, Beck, Candlebox, Do or Die, Fiona Apple, Garth Brooks, & Clint Black meet this criteria. Here's the raw data for each:

Sinéad O'Connor:

1994 Universal Mother The Billboard 200 36 1992 Am I Not Your Girl? The Billboard 200 27 1990 I Do Not Want What I Haven't Got The Billboard 200 1 1988 The Lion And The Cobra The Billboard 200 36

Faith No More:

1990 The Real Thing  The Billboard 200  11 1992 Angel Dust  The Billboard 200  10 1995 King for a Day, Fool for a Lifetime  The Billboard 200  31

Chris Isaak:

1989 Heart Shaped World  The Billboard 200 7 1993 San Francisco Days  The Billboard 200 35 1995 Forever Blue  The Billboard 200 31 1996 Baja Sessions  The Billboard 200 33 2002 Always Got Tonight  The Billboard 200 24

Queensrÿche:

1990 Empire  The Billboard 200                   7 1991 Operation: LIVEcrime  The Billboard 200     38 1994 Promised Land  The Billboard 200            3 1997 Hear in the Now Frontier  The Billboard 200 19 2006 Operation: Mindcrime II  The Billboard 200  14

k.d. lang:

1995 All You Can Eat The Billboard 200	37 1997 Drag	       The Billboard 200	29 1992 Ingenue	       The Billboard 200        18 2008 Watershed       The Billboard 200        8

Onyx:

1995 All We Got Iz Us   The Billboard 200  22 1993 Bacdafucup         The Billboard 200  17 1998 Shut 'Em Down	 The Billboard 200   10

Cypress Hill:

1993 Black Sunday                      The Billboard 200   1 1995 Cypress Hill III: Temples of Boom The Billboard 200   3 1992 Cypress Hill                      The Billboard 200  31 1998 IV                                The Billboard 200  11 2000 Skull & Bones                     The Billboard 200  5 2004 Till Death Do Us Part             The Billboard 200  21 1996 Unreleased & Revamped             The Billboard 200  21

Beck:

1994 Mellow Gold The Billboard 200  13 1999 Midnite Vultures The Billboard 200 34 2008 Modern Guilt The Billboard 200 4 1998 Mutations The Billboard 200 13 1996 Odelay The Billboard 200 16 2002 Sea Change The Billboard 200 8 2006 The Information The Billboard 200 7

Candlebox:

1993 Candlebox The Billboard 200 7 1995 Lucy The Billboard 200 11 2008 Into The Sun The Billboard 200 32

Do or Die:

2005 D.O.D. The Billboard 200 40 1998 Headz or Tailz The Billboard 200 13 1996 Picture This The Billboard 200 27 2000 Victory The Billboard 200 13

Fiona Apple:

2006 Extraordinary Machine The Billboard 200 7 1996 Tidal The Billboard 200 15 1999 When the Pawn... The Billboard 200 13

Garth Brooks:

1992 Beyond the Season The Billboard 200 2 1998 Double Live The Billboard 200 1 1995 Fresh Horses The Billboard 200 2 1999 Garth Brooks & the Magic of Christmas The Billboard 200 7 1990 Garth Brooks The Billboard 200 13 1993 In Pieces The Billboard 200 1 1999 In the Life of Chris Gaines The Billboard 200 2 1990 No Fences The Billboard 200 3 1991 Ropin' the Wind The Billboard 200	1 2001 Scarecrow The Billboard 200 1 1997 Sevens The Billboard 200	1 1992 The Chase The Billboard 200 1 1994 The Hits The Billboard 200	1 1998 The Limited Series The Billboard 200 1 2007 The Ultimate Hits The Billboard 200 3

Clint Black:

1996	Greatest Hits		 The Billboard 200	12 1989	Killin' Time		 The Billboard 200	31 1993	No Time to Kill		 The Billboard 200	14 1994	One Emotion		 The Billboard 200	37 1990	Put Yourself in My Shoes The Billboard 200	18 2004	Ultimate Clint Black	 The Billboard 200	27 1992	The Hard Way		 The Billboard 200	8

I used Allmusic for the source. I also added Loleatta Holloway, as she was a guest with Marky Mark. I hope this helps. - Thanks, Hoshie 02:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Should we make a subsection featuring popular artists who only had one hit single? There used to be before tables were intergrated on these pages. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 16:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I added them all back. I've added a special note for all these artists relating to how they are not called "one-hit wonders", but rather "Artists with only one top 40 hit." Holiday56 (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Songs not on the Whitburn book?
Hi, I've been interested in the topic for a while. I noticed a few acts with one song to reach the top forty on the Billboard Hot 100/Hot 100 Airplay. Yet I don't have a copy of the Whitburn book, which is being used as the reference for each song listed in the article.

I've done a little research on the songs using Billboard.com and Allmusic as sources. These acts have both have had only one single to reach the top forty, and one (or no) albums to reach the top forty. I'm positive that they meet the criteria, so I'm going to add them anyway.

Here's the table:

Source: Allmusic Billboard
 * Jive Bunny and the Mastermixers - "Swing the Mood" (#11, January 13, 1990)

Top 40 albums: 1989 Jive Bunny: The Album The Billboard 200 26 Source: Allmusic

Source: Allmusic Billboard
 * Shana - "I Want You" (#40, January 13, 1990)

Source: Allmusic Billboard
 * Fu-Schnickens - "What's Up Doc? (Can We Rock)" (#39, August 14, 1993)

Source: |WARINER&sql=11:0iftxql5ldfe~T51 Allmusic Billboard
 * Steve Wariner - "Two Teardrops" (#30, June 5, 1999)

Top 40 albums: 1999 Two Teardops The Billboard 200 35 Source: |WARINER&sql=11:0iftxql5ldfe~T5 Allmusic

Source: Allmusic Billboard
 * Lisa Hartman Black - "When I Said I Do" (with Clint Black)  (#31, December 25, 1999)
 * Thanks for adding these other artists! I'm been busy with other tasks here and couldn't get to this page. All of them are in the Whitburn book. I have removed Clint Black and Garth Brooks as they had more than 3 top 40 albums (see the thread above this one). I thought about bringing back the billboard refs at least for the dates so that they check out. - Thanks, Hoshie 01:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

More new artists in need of Whitburn 2004 references
Focusing more on the Airplay hits. They're all in the 2000 edition of the Whitburn book (checked Google Books). I'm not quite sure about their page numbers on the Whitburn 2004 edition, though.

Source: Billboard
 * '''D.N.A. - "Tom's Diner" (#5, Billboard Hot 100, December 22, 1990)

Source: Billboard
 * Big Daddy Kane - "Very Special" (#31, Billboard Hot 100, October 16, 1993)

Top 40 albums: 1989 It's a Big Daddy Thing The Billboard 200 33 1990 Taste of Chocolate The Billboard 200 37

Source: |DADDY|KANE&sql=11:difqxq95ld6e~T5 Billboard

 * Raphael Saadiq - "Ask of You (From Higher Learning)" (#19, Billboard Hot 100, May 20, 1995)

Top 40 albums: 2002 Instant Vintage The Billboard 200 25 2008 The Way I See It The Billboard 200 19

Source: |SAADIQ&sql=11:0vfuxqugldae~T5 Allmusic

 * Selena - "Dreaming of You" (#22, Billboard Hot 100, November 25, 1995)

Source: Billboard

Top 40 albums:

1994 Amor Prohibido The Billboard 200 29 1995 Dreaming of You The Billboard 200 1

Source: Allmusic

Source: Billboard
 * Silverchair - "Tomorrow" (#28, Hot 100 Airplay, September 30, 1995)

Top 40 albums: 1995 Frogstomp The Billboard 200 9 1997 Freak Show The Billboard 200 12

Source: Allmusic

Source: Billboard
 * Chantay Savage - "I Will Survive" (#24, Billboard Hot 100, April 20, 1996)

Source: Billboard
 * Sublime - "What I Got" (#29, Hot 100 Airplay, October 26, 1996)

Top 40 albums: 1996 Sublime 13 1997 Second Hand Smoke 28

Source: Allmusic

Source: Billboard
 * Ty Herndon - "It Must Be Love" (#38, Billboard Hot 100, December 5, 1998)

Yet I'm somewhat skeptical about adding the Fugees. They have had one Top 40 hit on the Billboard Hot 100 ("Fu-Gee-La", #29) and one Top 40 album (1996's The Score, #1 on the Billboard 200, Sourced from Allmusic). The reason why I'm skeptical about adding them is because of the song "Avenues", which peaked at #35 on the Hot 100. This featured the Fugees line-up (I believe), but was instead credited to Refugee Camp All-Stars featuring Pras, who was one-third of the Fugees.

Then, I'm also skeptical about adding Luke. Allmusic and Billboard say that his only Top 40 hit was "Raise the Roof" (#29, Billboard Hot 100, May 30, 1998) Then, I'm completely aware how the Top 40 "Banned in the U.S.A." was credited to "Luke featuring 2 Live Crew", or so I believe.

--Holiday56 (talk) 08:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here the references:

 * D.N.A. - "Tom's Diner" - "Tom's Diner" - p. 659
 * Big Daddy Kane - "Very Special" - p. 337
 * Raphael Saadiq - "Ask of You (From Higher Learning) - p. 549
 * Selena - "Dreaming of You" - p. 561
 * Silverchair - "Tomorrow" - p. 571
 * Chantay Savage - "I Will Survive" - p. 554
 * Sublime - "What I Got" - p. 612
 * Ty Herndon - "It Must Be Love" - p. 284

 * As for the others, As for the "Refugee Camp All-Stars", it appears to me to be a different group from the Fugees. Whitburn lists them under the Fugees (p. 245) and under Pras himself (P. 423). He also lists Pras as having another hit with "Ghetto Supastar" in 1998 (#15). As for the 2 Live Crew and Luke, I'm not sure. Whitburn lists him with 2 Live Crew (p. 648) and states that Luke "went solo in 1996". In short, I'm not sure about ether of these. - Thanks, Hoshie 10:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Discogs states that the Refugee Camp All-Stars was a hip-hop duo composed of John Forté and Pras. I'd probably suggest Pras was credited as a featured artist for promotion, because people probably knew him from the Fugees. I'm starting an article on them. They're similar in the case of Jim Henson; both Kermit and Ernie are listed under his name on the 2000 book; however, they're both listed as one-hit wonders. Holiday56 (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOR?
This doesn't violates WP:NOR?Comu_nacho (spanish speaker) (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Fully referenced by sources. Holiday56 (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Query re: Presidents of the United States of America
According to the Presidents of the United States of America article, "Lump" is listed as peaking at #26, which suggests they had two hits. Dan ad nauseam (talk) 04:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

 * That was actually #26 on the Hot 100 airplay chart. To date, "Peaches" is their only top 40 hit in the main hot 100 chart. 112.203.111.185 (talk) 09:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

 * I never even heard Peaches until maybe 2005-2010. Lump was the only song of theirs I ever heard on ANY radio. I'm pretty sure I speak for the masses. Please explain to me how Peaches was considered a bigger hit than Lump and Lump didn't even make it on your Top 40 list that you people use to consider songs. Considering you put Vince Gill on this list, and used a song that wasn't even one of his Grammy Winning songs, I trust very little that this page says. I think you should seriously rethink what makes them a one-hit wonder. If it was ahit on any major list it is a hit meaning they aren't on here. But, you have artists on here who won Grammies on multiple songs and claim they were one hit wonders with lesser known songs lol

2601:5:180:916:39BC:5BE4:EE9A:FD78 (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hot 100 airplay and hot 100
why is it that a band that has one hit on the hot 100 airplay is considered a one hit wonder but in a band has had a hit on the hot 100 airplay and hot 100 they are still one hit wonders example Fastball ("the way" 5-hot 100 airplay) (out of my head 20-hot 100)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feedmyeyes (talk • contribs) 21:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Fastball
Ok, this entry totally contradicts itself, if "The Way", reached #5 on the Hot 100 Airplay, why is "Out Of My Head" on here? So technically, Fastball is not a one hit wonder? The Man Who Needs No Introduction! (talk) 01:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Do the Bartman
This was not a US hit, it didn't even chart. Thus, it should be removed.

Wonderwall
"Wonderwall" wasn't Oasis's only top 40 hit. As I recall, "Champagne Supernova" reached #20 on the Billboard Hot 100, and "Live Forever" and "D'You Know What I Mean" both peaked at #39. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.24.182.66 (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

 * "Live Together" and "Champagne Supernova" did reach those positions, but only on the Hot 100 Airplay. "D'You Know What I Mean" did not chart on either the Hot 100 or Airplay charts. Oasis has had three songs on the Hot 100: "Wonderwall" (#8), "Don't Look Back in Anger" (#55), and "The Shock of the Lightning" (#93). Holiday56 (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Garbage?
Seriously? "When I Grow Up" was a #4 song a few years after "Stupid Girl" came out, and "#1 Crush topped out at 29 on the charts. Sedna1000 (talk) 10:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Sedna1000

One hit wonders...
Do you know the meaning of a "one hit wonder"? A one- hit wonder is an artist or group who had only ONE hit during the entire career. A lot of the artists listed are not one hit wonders. Please do more research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.0.71 (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

they need to have ONLY one Top 40 Hit on the Billboard Hot 100 Chart to be a one hit wonder Dman41689 (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Am' I Dreamin'
This is a song by Ol' Skool and "AID" is for sure Skool's only hit, so can you please add them? Oh, and can you also add Queen Pen and The Dove Shack member Bo-Roc? Cause Pen's song "All My Love" peaked at #28 on the Hot 100 in 1997 and Bo-Roc was featured on E-40's "Things'll Never Change", which peaked at #29 in 1994 as a B-side to "Rapper's Ball", featuring Too Short and K-Ci & JoJo.- Speedfish 22 February 2012 12:34 (UTC)

Garbage does not belong to this list
'Stupid Girl' is far from their only hit, songs like 'Queer' (#55), 'Only Happy When It Rains'(#57), 'Milk' or '#1 Crush' (Wich was a Airplay #29 hit, giving Garbage more than one top40 hit already, also a #1 Rock Hit, fueled the debut sales to make it a multi-platinum album with more than 4 million sales.

In 1998, still the 90s, Garbage released her sophomore album Version 2.0 wich featured a top5 Rock hit, a top10 Rock hit, another top20 rock hit and a top30 hit, all of them except 'When I Grow Up' charted in the Hot 100, one of them 'Special' nominated for two Grammys, all of these produced another multi-platinum, this time more than 4 million sales, again.

In 2005, Garbage released the Rock hit 'Why Do You Love Me' wich helped produce a high debut for Garbage #4 in the Billboar4d 200.

They are still active, and have released the top20 rock hit 'Blood For Poppies', their last album charted at #13 at the Billboard 200 and topped the Alternative Albums list at #1, it also was #5 At Rock Albums.

Garbage has recorded the soundtrack for a Bond Movie ('The World Is Not Enough')

They have sold more than 17 million albums, with 5 albums they're far, very far from being one-hit wonders. Garbage should be removed from this list.

Meshell Ndegeocello
Shouldn't Meshell Ndegeocello be on this list as a featured artist? She didn't have any solo hits, but her and John Mellencamp's cover of Van Morrison's "Wild Night" hit #3 on the Hot 100. DaBomb619 (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. I didn't see it on the page. DaBomb619 (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The BC-52's
I've got to question this one. The notes and wikilink go to the B-52's, a group who has achieved two #3 singles with "Love Shack" and "Roam" plus other hits in the top 40. The membership is the same. They added one letter to their name as a promotion for the movie The Flintstones. And that minor difference gives us an excuse to consider them a distinct group for this list? Trackinfo (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree — the change is probably about as significant as a band dropping "The" or another single word from their name — removed. Holiday56 (talk) 10:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The bc52s are just a joke name the b52s used for their appearance in the Flintstones movie. Robtverdi (talk) 00:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Removal of "Notes" section, and other potential fixes
I know I may have had a different stance on this in the past, but looking back I think the entire Notes section would be better off removed and replaced with a section in the lead explaining that influence, success in other countries, etc. aren't accounted for in the established criteria of a US one-hit wonder (one Hot 100 top 40 hit). The lead already establishes that this technical definition of a one-hit wonder is based solely on Hot 100 chart performance, so I don't see much point in enumerating each artist's other achievements (if getting a second top 40 hit on any other chart is all it takes to warrant italicization + a footnote, then pretty much every single artist here would end up in italics). Right now that section is a rather overlong and confusing to read—and most of all completely unreferenced—list of footnotes. It would probably take a good 200+ extra footnotes to reference each item in this section, and even then the inclusion of some of the notes are questionable (how is Michael Penn being Sean Penn's brother even relevant to an article about his chart performance?). Same thoughts go for other OHWs articles. Holiday56 (talk) 10:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I've been meaning to clean up these one-hit wonders articles (been working on a sandbox draft for some time now) and revamp them to make them more compliant with accessibility and formatting standards for lists. Some other (major) changes to the article I'd like to propose:

 * 1) Addition of pictures of selected artists from the list.
 * 2) Addition of sortable functions for the individual yearly lists.
 * 3) Removal of the alternating color scheme currently being used in favor of basic site-wide CSS attributes for the tables, per MOS. The colors seem to be purely decorative and serve as a potential hindrance to color-impaired readers (see WP:COLOR and MOS on colors). Plus, they make the addition and removal of list items rather strenuous.

If anybody supports/objects to any of the proposals I've laid down feel free to leave any thoughts; I plan to proceed if no objections arise. Cheers, Holiday56 (talk) 10:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Boldly applying the changes. Current vs. previous revisions, for comparison. Holiday56 (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

 * I think, at the very least, there should be some sort of signifier when the artist in question is not the lead performer of the song. In that case, there can be a footnote, or a separate featured artists table. Otherwise, this looks much better, and much cleaner. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 00:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @ Seconded. - 198.45.223.105 (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I feel that it was better when the featured artist had a their own table to avoid any type of confusion the readers may have. It be better for them to see that they are featured artists instead of them having to click on the song to find out that information Dman41689 (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

1995 - Vince Gill - House Of Love
I'm pretty sure Vince Gill was FAR from a one hit wonder. Should he even be on this list? I don't think I even need to post a link to prove this. Just do a quick google. lol this is why people don't trust Wikipedia as much as they could. Interesting thing...House Of Love isn't even one of his biggest hits... Just scan through all his awards and hits...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Gill

2601:5:180:916:39BC:5BE4:EE9A:FD78 (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I just checked each of them because I didn't remember the song House Of Love being on any Vince Gill albums. It wasn't. it was on an Amy Grant album. The song was recorded as a duet between Amy grant & Vince Gill. Considering Vince Gill had multiple hits..it shouldn't be his name on here. I'm not familiar with how many hits Amy Grant had...maybe change it to say Amy Grant had the song as a hit, instead of Vince Gill....because Vince Gill is NOT a one-hit wonder. 2601:5:180:916:39BC:5BE4:EE9A:FD78 (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Revisions
An IP editor came in today and made a succession of edits based on. . . I'm not sure what his criteria was. But the editor was partially correct. Using the WP discographies as a source: Everlast has three appearances on the US Main chart; What Its Like #1, Ends #7 and Black Jesus #30. He was correctly removed. Fatboy Slim has only charted once on the US Main chart with Praise You #36. Beck only made the top 40 once with Loser #10, he had several appearances in the 60's and 70's, a lot of Alt success and the 2014 Grammy, but still belongs on the list. Offspring is harder to decipher without further research, their discography shows zero on the U.S. chart, not even Come Out and Play. They don't belong on the list for the opposite reason. Iggy Pop has charted three times with Cry for Love #34, Real Wild Child (Wild One) #27 and Cold Metal #37. Public Enemy just one Give It Up #33, Sublime just one With What I Got #11. and Cake eeks its way off the list with The Distance #38 and Never There #40. It seems the IP edited from their own impressions of things. Leaving out Offspring, they were correct 3 times vs the cumulative work of all other wikipedia editors, while the stats prove 4 to be correctly placed on the list. It shows everybody needs to do better research. I'll try to revert the correct listings. Trackinfo (talk) 07:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Oasis?
From what I can tell from Oasis' discography they only had one hit on the Hot 100 despite being a huge sensation in the U.K and having successes on the Alt. rock charts and the Hot 100 Airplay. I am going to ad them unless there is something that contradicts this which you can undo. --73.240.105.185 (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

JESUS JONES !
I think JESUS JONES is a one hit wonder

they had a hit # 2 on the Hot 100

but than after a few months they had another hit with REAL REAL REAL peaking at #4  but something is very strange about it

it is official that they had another top 10 hit but it s very strange   it peaked at a low position on the SALES and low position on AIRPLAY how it can be top 10 then ?

But if you ask people who were living at that time and were eager mtv and radio fans they don't know the later song — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.106.94 (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Digital Underground
Is Digital Underground, a.k.a. "Humpty Hump" one-hit wonders with The Humpty Dance? 97.96.29.159 (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

OFFSPRING not a one hit wonder
OFFSPRING are one hit wonders in the USA ?

they had at least 2 Multi-Platinum albums in the USA

SMASH and Americana !

THEY HAD SEVERAL RADIO HITS IN THE US

but also a lot of Hot 100 entries

in 2008 one of their song reached the Hot 100 and sold over 1,000,000 copies (YOUR GONNA GO FAR) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.247.242.166 (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

OFFSPRING does not make sense !
im not a fan of the band

but they don't belong here

ONLY HOT 100 TOP 40 count for the terminology of ONE HIT WONDER

Example 1     Band has a  #31 Hit on the Hot 100  and then a  # 41 Hit = one hit wonder

example 2     Band has # 42  hit   and a #45 hit  = No one hit wonder

Offspring had several Hot 100 entries !

COME OUT AND PLAY reached top 40 mainstream top 40

but KRISTY ARE YOU DOING OK ? reached also top 40 of the Mainstream Top 40 charts

THEREFORE NO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.247.242.166 (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria -- see 2010s discussion
Please take part in the discussion about inclusion criteria which is underway at Talk:List of 2010s one-hit wonders in the United States. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 04:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

One-hit wonder inclusion criteria
If you're interested in the topic, your comments would be appreciated at Talk:List of 2010s one-hit wonders in the United States where there is a discussion with sweeping ramifications about whether the "one-hit wonder" articles will be based on charting songs or on artists described in sources. Binksternet (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


text:
2003 in Norwegian football

The 2003 season was the 98th season of competitive football in Norway.

Play-offs
November 10: Sandefjord – Vålerenga 0–0

November 22: Vålerenga – Sandefjord 5–3 (agg. 5–3)

Vålerenga stay up.

Top scorers
17 goals: Harald Martin Brattbakk, Rosenborg

15 goals: Frode Johnsen, Rosenborg

13 goals: Håvard Flo, Sogndal

11 goals: Magne Hoseth, Molde
 * Erik Nevland, Viking

10 goals: Edwin van Ankeren, Odd Grenland
 * Thomas Finstad, Stabæk

Final

 * Medkila 2–1 Kolotn

Norwegian representatives

 * Rosenborg (UEFA Champions League)
 * Vålerenga (UEFA Cup, cup winner)
 * Molde (UEFA Cup)
 * Lyn (UEFA Cup)

Intertoto Cup
No Norwegian representative this season.

Norwegian representatives

 * Kolbotn

Group 6
Matches (in Kolbotn)

Group 2
Matches

Norway women's national football team
January 23: Norway – United States 1–3, friendly

January 26: Norway – Germany 2–2, friendly

January 29: China – Norway 1–1, friendly

February 17: Norway – Denmark 3–3, friendly

February 20: Norway – Denmark 4–0, friendly

March 14: Sweden – Norway 1–1, friendly

March 16: Norway – United States 0–1, friendly

March 18: Norway – Canada 1–0, friendly

March 20: Norway – France 1–0, friendly

May 11: Norway – Belgium 6–0, European Championship qualifier

May 15: Norway – Netherlands 2–0, European Championship qualifier

August 2: Norway – Nigeria 3–2, friendly

September 11: Norway – Denmark 1–1, European Championship qualifier

September 20: Norway – France 2–0, World Cup 1st round

September 24: Norway – Brazil 1–4, World Cup 1st round

September 27: South Korea – Norway 1–7, World Cup 1st round

October 1: United States – Norway 1–0, World Cup quarterfinal

November 1: Spain – Norway 0–2, European Championship qualifier

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: 2003 in Norwegian football


text:
Anders Järryd

Anders Per Järryd (born 13 July 1961) is a former professional tennis player from Sweden. During his career he won eight Grand Slam doubles titles (three French Open, two Wimbledon, two US Open, one Australian Open), reached the world No. 1 doubles ranking, and achieved a career-high singles ranking of world No. 5.

Järryd was born in Lidköping, Västra Götaland. He also played bandy in Lidköpings AIK, while growing up.

Career
Järryd turned professional in 1980. He won his first tour doubles title in 1981 in Linz, Austria. One year later he captured his first top-level singles title, also at Linz. In 1983, Järryd won his first Grand Slam doubles title at the French Open, partnering his fellow Swede Hans Simonsson. Järryd had a strong year in 1984, winning two singles and four doubles titles. He also finished runner-up in the men's doubles at the US Open that year, partnering Stefan Edberg.

1985 saw Järryd's career-best Grand Slam singles performance, when he beat Claudio Panatta, Scott Davis, Vincent Van Patten, Danie Visser and Heinz Günthardt to reach the semi-finals at Wimbledon before being knocked out in four sets by Boris Becker. Järryd reached his career-high singles ranking of world No. 5 in July 1985, and captured the world No. 1 doubles ranking that August. At the French Open and US Open, Järryd progressed to career-best finishes in those two tournaments, finishing the fourth round and quarterfinal respectively. In 1986 he won the WCT Finals by beating Boris Becker in the final, while he and Edberg were the men's doubles runners-up at the French Open.

Järryd won three of the four Grand Slam men's doubles titles in 1987: at the Australian Open (with partner Edberg), in Roland Garros (with partner Robert Seguso), and at the US Open (with partner Edberg). Järryd was a member of Swedish team which won the Davis Cup that year. He won two singles matches in the final, in which Sweden beat India 5–0. (Järryd also played on three Swedish teams which finished runners-up in the Davis Cup: in 1986, in 1988, and in 1989.)

Järryd played with John Fitzgerald in 1988, to finish runner-up in the men's doubles at the French Open and Wimbledon. Järryd won a men's doubles bronze medal at the Olympic Games that year, partnering Edberg. Järryd was a member of the Swedish team which won the World Team Cup in 1988. He partnered Fitzgerald in 1989 to win the men's doubles title at Wimbledon, thus completing a career set of all four Grand Slam men's doubles titles. Järryd and Fitzgerald won three of the four men's doubles titles in 1991: in Roland Garros, in Wimbledon, and at the US Open, his last Grand Slam titles. Järryd reached his last Grand Slam doubles final at the 1993 Australian Open, with Fitzgerald.

Järryd won eight top-level singles titles and 58 tour doubles titles during his career. His final singles title came in 1993 at Rotterdam. He won his last doubles title in 1995 at St. Petersburg. He retired from the professional tour in 1996.

title: Anders Järryd


text:
Investment club

An investment club is a group of individuals who meet for the purpose of pooling money and investing; members typically meet periodically to make investment decisions as a group through a voting process and recording of minutes, or gather information and perform investment transactions outside the group. In the US the upper limit for the value of an investment club's worth is $25m. There is no lower limit. Investment clubs provide members a means to learn about markets, while meeting and working with people who have similar interests.

History
Although people have been investing in groups for thousands of years, the world's first investment club was allegedly established in Texas in 1898 back in the days of the Wild West when few investments could be considered safe. Investment clubs were seen as an ideal way of spreading the risk – away from just cattle.

While the first investment club on record dates back to the 1800s in Western America, various online communities devoted to this type of investing have recently emerged and have contributed to the personal investing boom in the United States. One of the reasons that people come together in investment clubs is to learn how to invest. In Britain investment clubs took off in the 1950s, but the formation rate fell during the 2008 financial crisis.

Starting an Investment Club
Industry observers recommend prospective members adhere to these guidelines:

 * Consult a tax adviser on the taxation implications of the club's selected legal structure
 * Establish an investment mission, policy and goals that allow active participation before investing
 * Draw up a written operating or membership agreement covering asset management rules and membership changes
 * Evaluate fees for different tools and platforms to maximize returns.
 * Focus on learning and making money.

High School Extracurricular Investment Clubs
This form of investment club usually meets to develop interest in investing and the intricacies of investing for minors, usually high school students. They typically are led by an adult who has experience in professional investing.

Stock, Mutual Fund or Bond Investment Clubs
These clubs are groups of people that pool their money to purchase stocks, stock options, mutual funds or bonds. Many clubs are educational in nature with objectives in line with learning how to make smart long-term investments. The National Association of Investors Corporation is a non-profit organization of many investment clubs with this purpose. These clubs may decide to buy or sell investments typically based on a majority votes.

Club objectives do vary and in the U.S. the Securities and Exchange Commission may require that a club be registered depending on the intent of investment. The SEC distinguishes between clubs on the basis of several laws including the Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, which are concerned with whether the club issues membership interests that are effectively securities.

Club officers and members are not normally required to hold a securities license as long as they refrain from soliciting compensation in exchange for financial advice or soliciting the sale of stock, mutual funds or bonds in third-party companies. One allowed exception is that a CEO / President or CFO of a C Corporation is allowed to solicit stock or bonds in their corporation as long as they provide a private placement memorandum that complies with the law to their new shareholders. One additional requirement is that non-accredited investors must be Directors of the C Corporation in addition to being shareholders.

Real Estate Investment Clubs
Clubs of this type are most commonly publicized as a real estate investment group or company, rather than a club. The legal distinction according to the SEC is having 100 members or less. Whereas, a real estate investment group would normally have more than 100 investors. These clubs normally buy real estate or notes (loans originated by a licensed third party) to benefit from: cash flow, appreciation of assets, instant equity, tax benefits from deductions or qualified dividends, group buying power, monthly or daily compounding, higher liquidity and diversification of risk. Real estate transactions are limited to 35 participants to meet the legal requirements of many states for being closely held, and can be legally organized as a sole proprietorship transferring assets to a group living trust, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, general partnership or C corporation.

Business Investment Clubs
These clubs are often called incubators and are formed to purchase businesses that generate cash flow and equity. Investment types range from a group of people buying lower risk franchises with at least two years of significant revenues and positive cash flow like major fast food franchises, gas stations and hotels to higher risk businesses without an income history like start-ups, inventions, or product patenting and prototype development.

Hybrid Investment Clubs
Hybrid clubs are a combination of two or more of the above types of investment clubs. Typically, real estate investment clubs are lower in risk and provide higher returns of 21% to 70% than stock, mutual fund or bond investment clubs due to the ongoing need for housing and population growth. Business investment clubs have about equal risk when compared to stock, mutual fund or bond investment clubs. However, business investment clubs have several additional benefits which include significantly higher returns and lower operating expenses measured by the net profit per year divided by the amount of cash necessary to purchase the business. Additionally, you can also hire yourself or family members to work in the business as employees.

Self-directed investment clubs
A self-directed investment club is a type of investment club in which members do not make financial contributions, but rather meet on a regular or informal basis to share stock tips and advice, and then invest in their individual portfolios, not in a common club portfolio (as is more typical of investment clubs). The phrase was coined by financial author and investment club expert Douglas Gerlach in Investment Clubs for Dummies.

Conduct of business
In order to operate an investment club, business must be conducted in a somewhat orderly fashion. The level of formality will vary based on the club type. A typical club will have informal channels of communication via mailing lists, Twitter accounts or message boards. In addition to the informal channels of communication, an investment club must set up formal channels of communication to conduct business. Typically, this is done with monthly meetings. A typical meeting agenda will include all the normal activity you would expect in an organization with elected officials. A typical meeting agenda:

 * Roll call
 * Old business – list of any unfinished business from the previous meeting.
 * Summary of votes – Summary of all voted decisions from the previous meeting
 * NAV presentation – NAV or the Net Asset Value of the club will indicate what each club member is worth on paper.
 * Available funds – a presentation of Available funds to invest.
 * Presentation of current research – each member assigned to present an investment option will present his/her research.
 * Vote to hold or invest – A vote to hold cash, sell current assets or invest in one of the investment options
 * Investment vote – A final vote on an investment strategy specifying an exact amount to invest and strategy to execute that investment.
 * Other business – Typically, other business will include proxy voting needs or other day-to-day business operational needs. This could also include options to change a brokerage house, or discussions of counter party risk.
 * Formal close of meeting

United Kingdom
Investment clubs are normally unincorporated associations. Members' contributions are converted into 'units' whose value rises and falls in line with the value of the underlying investments. The clubs are not taxed corporately, and members should account individually for their share of profits and capital gains.

United States
Investment clubs are generally formed as general partnerships, but could also be formed as limited liability companies, limited liability partnerships, corporations, or sole proprietorship that transfer real estate assets to a group living trust (similar to a family trust). While an investment club could incorporate, the double tax treatment on corporate distributions makes the corporate structure less desirable than a partnership except in the case when a C Corporation pays out qualified dividends after deducting allowable expenses. Typically, a general partnership does not generate any tax liability on its own; instead, any tax liability is passed through to members each year. However, income taxes are generally much higher than taxes on qualified dividends.

In order to understand the legal structure that an investment club should choose, the club should first understand its club type. Each of the different club types will have different legal requirements as well as different reporting requirements. Typically, the SEC only requires reporting for investment groups with over 100 members, which is reclassified as an investment group, not an investment club. Publicly held offerings like a Real Estate Investment Trust as known as a REIT also have additional reporting requirements.

Tax implications
Investment club accounting software can facilitate the management of a club's books and the preparation of tax filings.

In the United States Investment club partnerships may have to file Form 1065 and Schedule K-1s with the IRS each year, and with States that require partnership filings.

In the United Kingdom investment clubs and their members are required to submit form 185(new) to HMRC each year.

title: Investment club


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Hile

 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. Mackensen (talk) 23:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

James Hile
Not vanity per se (created by a student of his), but not important or well-known enough for an article.Αλεξ Σ 17:24, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete or my music teacher should have an article, too :). Karol 17:39, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete close enough to vanity, certainly no-one important. UkPaolo 18:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable. - Etacar11 00:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. NeoJustin 03:23, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable. Megan1967 09:58, 31 May 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.


text:
2003 Wimbledon Championships

The 2003 Wimbledon Championships was a tennis tournament played on Grass courts at the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club, Wimbledon, London, United Kingdom. It was the 117th edition of the Wimbledon Championships and were held from 23 June to 6 July 2003. It was the third Grand Slam tennis event of the year.

Lleyton Hewitt was unsuccessful in his 2002 title defence, being upset in the first round by Grand Slam debutant Ivo Karlović. It was the first time in the Open Era history of Wimbledon that a defending champion had lost in the first round, the second time overall. This Wimbledon was notable for being Roger Federer's first grand slam victory when he defeated Mark Philippoussis in the final. This would be the first of five consecutive Wimbledon titles for Federer, and eight overall. Serena Williams successfully defended her 2002 title, defeating her sister Venus in the final for the second consecutive year.

Media coverage
Broadcast coverage of the 2003 Championships was distributed to 159 territories worldwide and the tournament received more than 5,717 hours of coverage. This was an increase of 565 hours from the 2002 figure and surpassed all previous records for the event. The BBC transmitted 160 hours of coverage in the United Kingdom on BBC One and BBC Two. The official Championships website www.wimbledon.org received 242 million page views and 4.3 million visitors.

Prior to the start of the 2003 Championships, the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club announced that it would begin purchasing insurance cover that would allow the club to cover losses in the event that a future tournament would be canceled as a result of a pandemic; this policy was announced in the wake of the SARS outbreak and required the club to pay £1.6 million per year.

Prize money
The total prize money for 2003 championships was £9,373,990. The winner of the men's title earned £575,000 while the women's singles champion earned £535,000.

 * per team

Men's singles
Roger Federer defeated 🇦🇺 Mark Philippoussis, 7–6(7–5), 6–2, 7–6(7–3)
 * It was Federer's 5th title of the year, and his 9th overall. It was his 1st career Grand Slam title. He became the first Swiss male player to win a Grand Slam singles title. It was the first, in what was to become 5 consecutive Wimbledon titles, and 8 overall. It was also the first Grand Slam title of the 20 won by Federer through the course of his career, a joint second place for the most Grand Slam singles titles in the history of the men's game.

Women's singles
🇺🇸 Serena Williams defeated 🇺🇸 Venus Williams, 4–6, 6–4, 6–2
 * It was Serena's 4th title of the year, and her 23rd overall. It was her 6th career Grand Slam title, and her 2nd at Wimbledon.

Men's doubles
🇸🇪 Jonas Björkman / 🇦🇺 Todd Woodbridge defeated 🇮🇳 Mahesh Bhupathi / 🇧🇾 Max Mirnyi, 3–6, 6–3, 7–6(7–4), 6–3

Women's doubles
🇧🇪 Kim Clijsters / 🇯🇵 Ai Sugiyama defeated 🇪🇸 Virginia Ruano Pascual / 🇦🇷 Paola Suárez, 6–4, 6–4

Mixed doubles
🇮🇳 Leander Paes / 🇺🇸 Martina Navratilova defeated 🇮🇱 Andy Ram / 🇷🇺 Anastasia Rodionova, 6–3, 6–3

Boys' singles
Florin Mergea defeated 🇦🇺 Chris Guccione, 6–2, 7–6(7–3)

Girls' singles
🇧🇪 Kirsten Flipkens defeated 🇷🇺 Anna Chakvetadze, 6–4, 3–6, 6–3

Boys' doubles
Florin Mergea / Horia Tecău defeated 🇦🇺 Adam Feeney / 🇦🇺 Chris Guccione, 7–6(7–4), 7–5

Girls' doubles
🇷🇺 Alisa Kleybanova / 🇮🇳 Sania Mirza defeated 🇨🇿 Kateřina Böhmová / Michaëlla Krajicek, 2–6, 6–3, 6–2

Men's singles

 * 1) 🇦🇺 Lleyton Hewitt (first round, lost to Ivo Karlović)
 * 2) 🇺🇸 Andre Agassi (fourth round, lost to Mark Philippoussis)
 * 3) 🇪🇸 Juan Carlos Ferrero (fourth round, lost to Sébastien Grosjean)
 * 4)  Roger Federer (champion)
 * 5) 🇺🇸 Andy Roddick (semifinals, lost to Roger Federer)
 * 6) 🇦🇷 David Nalbandian (fourth round, lost to Tim Henman)
 * 7) 🇦🇷 Guillermo Coria (first round, lost to Olivier Rochus)
 * 8)  Sjeng Schalken (quarterfinals, lost to Roger Federer)
 * 9) 🇩🇪 Rainer Schüttler (fourth round, lost to Sjeng Schalken)
 * 10) 🇬🇧 Tim Henman (quarterfinals, lost to  Sébastien Grosjean)
 * 11) 🇨🇿 Jiří Novák (third round, lost to Alexander Popp)
 * 12) 🇹🇭 Paradorn Srichaphan (fourth round, lost to Andy Roddick)
 * 13) 🇫🇷 Sébastien Grosjean (semifinals, lost to Mark Philippoussis)
 * 14) 🇧🇪 Xavier Malisse (first round, lost to Cyril Saulnier)
 * 15) 🇫🇷 Arnaud Clément (second round, lost to Justin Gimelstob)
 * 16) 🇷🇺 Mikhail Youzhny (second round, lost to Feliciano López)
 * 17) 🇧🇷 Gustavo Kuerten (second round, lost to Todd Martin)
 * 18) 🇷🇺 Marat Safin (withdrew due to injury)
 * 19)  Fernando González (first round, lost to Jürgen Melzer)
 * 20) 🇷🇺 Yevgeny Kafelnikov (first round, lost to Raemon Sluiter)
 * 21)  Martin Verkerk (first round, lost to Robin Söderling)
 * 22) 🇪🇸 Félix Mantilla (first round, lost to Frédéric Niemeyer)
 * 23) 🇦🇷 Agustín Calleri (second round, lost to Flávio Saretta)
 * 24) 🇪🇸 Albert Costa (withdrew due to injury)
 * 25) 🇪🇸 Tommy Robredo (third round, lost to Andy Roddick)
 * 26) 🇺🇸 James Blake (second round, lost to Sargis Sargsian)
 * 27) 🇲🇦 Younes El Aynaoui (third round, lost to Andre Agassi)
 * 28)  Wayne Ferreira (first round, lost to Karol Kučera)
 * 29) 🇦🇷 Gastón Gaudio (first round, lost to Mardy Fish)
 * 30) 🇫🇮 Jarkko Nieminen (third round, lost to Olivier Rochus)
 * 31) 🇺🇸 Vince Spadea (first round, lost to Max Mirnyi)
 * 32) 🇦🇷 Juan Ignacio Chela (second round, lost to Victor Hănescu)
 * 33) 🇷🇺 Nikolay Davydenko (first round, lost to Lee Childs)
 * 34) 🇪🇸 Àlex Corretja (withdrew due to personal reasons)
 * 35) 🇨🇿 Radek Štěpánek (third round, lost to Mark Philippoussis)

Women's singles

 * 1) 🇺🇸 Serena Williams (champion)
 * 2) 🇧🇪 Kim Clijsters (semifinals, lost to Venus Williams)
 * 3) 🇧🇪 Justine Henin-Hardenne (semifinals, lost to Serena Williams)
 * 4) 🇺🇸 Venus Williams (final, lost to Serena Williams)
 * 5) 🇺🇸 Lindsay Davenport (quarterfinals, lost to Venus Williams)
 * 6) 🇫🇷 Amélie Mauresmo (withdrew due to injury)
 * 7) 🇺🇸 Chanda Rubin (third round, lost to Silvia Farina Elia)
 * 8) 🇺🇸 Jennifer Capriati (quarterfinals, lost to Serena Williams)
 * 9) 🇸🇰 Daniela Hantuchová (second round, lost to Shinobu Asagoe)
 * 10) 🇷🇺 Anastasia Myskina (fourth round, lost to Jennifer Capriati)
 * 11)  Jelena Dokić (third round, lost to Maria Sharapova)
 * 12) 🇧🇬 Magdalena Maleeva (second round, lost to Paola Suárez)
 * 13) 🇯🇵 Ai Sugiyama (fourth round, lost to Kim Clijsters)
 * 14)  Eleni Daniilidou (second round, lost to Mary Pierce)
 * 15) 🇷🇺 Elena Dementieva (fourth round, lost to Serena Williams)
 * 16) 🇷🇺 Vera Zvonareva (fourth round, lost to Venus Williams)
 * 17)  Amanda Coetzer (second round, lost to Francesca Schiavone)
 * 18) 🇪🇸 Conchita Martínez (third round, lost to Anastasia Myskina)
 * 19) 🇺🇸 Meghann Shaughnessy (first round, lost to Anikó Kapros)
 * 20)  Patty Schnyder (first round, lost to Petra Mandula)
 * 21) 🇷🇺 Elena Bovina (second round, lost to Maria Sharapova)
 * 22) 🇫🇷 Nathalie Dechy (third round, lost to Ai Sugiyama)
 * 23) 🇺🇸 Lisa Raymond (third round, lost to Mary Pierce)
 * 24) 🇪🇸 Magüi Serna (second round, lost to Maja Matevžič)
 * 25) 🇮🇱 Anna Pistolesi (first round, lost to Samantha Reeves)
 * 26) 🇺🇸 Alexandra Stevenson (first round, lost to Émilie Loit)
 * 27) 🇮🇹 Silvia Farina Elia (quarterfinals, lost to Kim Clijsters)
 * 28) 🇺🇸 Laura Granville (third round, lost to Serena Williams)
 * 29) 🇷🇺 Nadia Petrova (third round, lost to Venus Williams)
 * 30) 🇨🇿 Denisa Chládková (second round, lost to Cara Black)
 * 31) 🇷🇺 Elena Likhovtseva (second round, lost to Alicia Molik)
 * 32) 🇹🇭 Tamarine Tanasugarn (first round, lost to Akiko Morigami)
 * 33) 🇷🇺 Svetlana Kuznetsova (quarterfinals, lost to Justine Henin-Hardenne)

title: 2003 Wimbledon Championships


text:
Edward Gordon, Baron Gordon of Drumearn

Edward Strathearn Gordon, Baron Gordon of Drumearn, (10 April 1814 – 21 August 1879) was a Scottish judge and politician.

Early life and education
Gordon was born on 10 April 1814. He was educated at Inverness Royal Academy, Royal High School, Edinburgh, the University of Glasgow and the University of Edinburgh.

Career
He was called to the Scottish bar in 1835. He was appointed Sheriff of Perth for 1858 to 1866, Solicitor General for Scotland from 1866 to 1867, and Lord Advocate from 1867 to 1868 and again from 1874 to 1876. He was Dean of the Faculty of Advocates from 1868 to 1874. He became a Queen's Counsel in 1868, and was appointed a Privy Counsellor in 1874. He was a made a Law Life Peer in 1876 as Baron Gordon of Drumearn, in the County of Stirling, and sat as a Lord of Appeal from 1876 to 1879.

He was the Conservative Member of Parliament for Thetford from 1867 to 1868 and for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities from 1869 to 1876.

Personal life
In 1845, Gordon married Agnes MacInnes. Together they had seven children, including Frederick Gordon. Their daughter Ella married in 1871 John James Hood Gordon.

As of 1874–75, he lived at 2 Randolph Crescent on the edge of the Moray Estate in western Edinburgh.

He died in Brussels while travelling to Homburg for his health and is buried with his family against the original north boundary wall of Dean Cemetery in Edinburgh.

title: Edward Gordon, Baron Gordon of Drumearn


text:
Nelumbonaceae

Nelumbonaceae is a family of aquatic flowering plants. Nelumbo is the sole extant genus, containing Nelumbo lutea, native to North America, and Nelumbo nucifera, widespread in Asia. At least five other genera, Nelumbites, Exnelumbites, Paleonelumbo, Nelumbago, and Notocyamus are known from fossils.

Nelumbonaceae were once included in the waterlily family, Nymphaeaceae. Genetic analysis determined that the similarities between the families are an example of convergent evolution. Nelumbonaceae are highly modified eudicots belonging to the order Proteales, their closest living relatives being the plane trees (Platanaceae) and Proteaceae. Notocyamus from the Early Cretaceous of Brazil is the oldest known representative of the family, and displays several transitional traits between Nelumbonaceae and both the Proteaceae and Platanaceae.

The APG IV system of 2016 places the family in the order Proteales, in the clade eudicots. The Cronquist system, of 1981, also recognized this family, but placed it in order Nymphaeales in subclass Magnoliidae in class Magnoliopsida (=dicotyledons), based on gross morphological similarities. The Dahlgren system and Thorne system (1992) also recognized this family and placed it in its own order, Nelumbonales, in superorder Magnolianae in subclass Magnoliidae (=dicotyledons).

title: Nelumbonaceae


text:
User talk:Phantym/Creation science rewrite proposal

← User:Phantym/Creation science rewrite proposal

Comments moved in from Talk:Creation science

 * This proposed article appears to be a collection of material drawn from creationist websites - complete with spelling mistakes and garbled and invented terms and phrases. Wikipedia is not going to accept material published in “creation science” journals as being on a par with the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Ian Pitchford 19:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Agreed. It will never fly: the text lacks even a pretense of objectivity or scholarly rigour. It's a collection unsupported assertions and is without even a hint of presenting the actual mainstream scientific criticisms fairly; those times it deign to present the criticisms of scientists, it whitewashes them or offers the usual straw man arguments found on the usual CS websites. The indictments of mainstream science are equally jaundiced and hackneyed: offering as evidence Piltdown Man, etc. It also gets most of the analysis of the philosophy and method of science wrong. Nice try, but it's better suited to CreationWiki, not Wikipedia. FeloniousMonk 20:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The same criticisms could be leveled at the present article, with respect to its straw-man description of creation science, refusal to articulate the reason and philosophy behind it, propensity to illogic, failure to adhere to the rules of npov regarding not stating or implying that a particular point of view is right or wrong. Ungtss 21:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * That rhetoric in itself is a straw man. The current article is factually accurate, well-cited and represents over a year of diligent effort, heated debate, and painfully-reached and hard-won compromise between many editors. I for one am not willing to stand by idly and watch the entire ugly process restarted by ideologically driven creation science POV content replacing the accurate and neutral content already in place.

FeloniousMonk 03:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * the hard fought compromise you that you speak of refers to editing wars in which one user continued to demand that obvious pejoratives were used throughout the entire article. I don't consider those revert duels particularly good example of consensus buildings.  Furthermore, the current article does not portray Creation Science accurately because:
 * 1. It does not indicate the existence of actual creation-based models that have given authentic predictions that were later verified. Instead, it continually paints creationist science as pseudo-science, which it clearly is not based on the simple definition of science. If you make models that fit observations, and those models explain phenomena, then you are doing science.  If your models make predictions that can be tested, then your models have achieved what everyone wants from a scientific theory. Since there are documented cases of this, the article is not only wildly inaccurate, but absurdly POV on the matter.
 * 2. It fails to represent creation science as a structure of theories that are informed by a collection of postulates different from naturalistic science. Instead it portrays creation science as a body of work meant to prove creation itself, which it is not. This has led to myriad inaccuracies and inappropriate pejorations. It appears that the editors themsleves were not aware of this, and so it is understandable that such errors creep in.
 * 3. It focuses on a deluge of topics that could all be considered reasons to mistrust creation science rather than informing the reader as to the work, goals, progress, and challenges of creation science. In that sense it does not adequate represent the word [or, in this case, phrase] for which it is supposed to be an entry.
 * Finally, the criticisms that naturalistic scientists have levelled at the various theories come directly [with one exception] from extremely anti-creationist literature and websites. Talkorigins has as its entire goal to debunk creationist challenges based on showing creationists to be scientifically misguided. So your suggestion that I have whitewashed there criticism or made their arguments a straw man are simply inaccurate. I have not stated "Creationists tried to show blah blah blah by doing blah blah but insert mainstream scientist here showed them to be in error because of insert reason here because that would not be NPOV. It might be what you wanted, but it is not NPOV.  -Phantym 01:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * the old classic evolutionist fallback. "it doesn't matter what you think.  i think it's good, so it stays, no matter what reasons or policies are presented which provide basis for an alternative interpretation:(."  incidentally, the article is not "the result of over a year of work."  It is just over 4 months old.  it stood as a redirect for 3 years.  Ungtss 19:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * This article is a debated offshoot of the article on creationism

Theory
Ec5618 said that creation being a theory is hardly contended. I am not sure what he means by this. I think most scientists say that special creation is not a theory at all because it is not testible. I believe this is true of both those who believe in creation and those who do not. That is why I found it appropriate to be put in the Postulate section, as it is a motivator for other theories, just as uniformitarianism is a motivator for theories.

Could you please explain a bit more what you meant?

 * I'm sorry, I seem to have somehow misplaced a word. I wanted to say that evolution's status as a theory is hardly contended.
 * Any argument I have yet heard to show that evolution is not a theory could just as easily be used to show that gravity is not a theory either, and neither is the rotation of the Earth, nor the roundness of the Earth. These are all theories, though hardly contested.
 * Most people seem to feel it's quite likely that the Earth is round and revolves around the Sun. Yet we cannot actually prove it. I can't prove I exist. You can talk to me, and under different circumstanses, you could see me, touch me, smell, taste, hear and feel me. Yet you would not be able to prove my existence.
 * Evolution is a theory, only because its not impossible. Should it become likely, because of new evidence, that both or either of the Genesis accounts of creation was in fact correct, .. well .. science would call creation a theory.
 * But there would have to be a whole lot of evidence to convince anyone that evolution should not be a theory. -- Ec5618 07:57, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * tangentially related but i think useful point: one of the primary problems with this page has been the difficulty in successfully conveying the distinction between "theory" and "postulate" in such a way that the text is not instantly deleted as pov propaganda. i've found that among those predisposed to accept evolution, philosophical naturalism is not a postulate but a fact, so that science can by definition only work within that framework, and cannot accept the postulation of divine intervention.  However, the distinction between postulate and theory and the identification of naturalism as postulate rather than fact is essential to any npov understanding of creation science, because creation science is premised on the belief that creation itself is unfalsifiable, but so are common ancestry and abiogenesis, so that they both stand on equal ground as "origins science."  Ec, your insight on how to convey this point in an effective and npov manner that will not be deleted in less than five minutes would be greatly appreciated:).  Ungtss 18:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

This proposed article appears to be a collection of material drawn from creationist websites - complete with spelling mistakes and garbled/invented terms and phrases. Wikipedia is not going to accept material published in “creation science” journals as being on a par with the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Ian Pitchford 19:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * If one wishes to discuss the models or theories that creationists espouse, it would seem strange to look elsewhere. There is no meaningful way of discussing creation science without referencing those journals since secular journals typically refuse to publish material that does not conform to their a priori notions. Indeed, deciding that creationist journals are a priori not suitable citations reveals a deep-seeded POV immediately -Phantym 21:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * as anticipated:(. Ungtss 19:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Two major disagreements
I looked at the edit markup and it appears there are two major points of contention discussed by Ec5618

 * 1) The conflation of ambiogenesis with evolution
 * 2) The use of the word theory to describe Creation science

With regard to the first, I do not forsee a problem modifying the article to indicate that evolution itself does not propose an origin of life, but it should be indicated that evolution is strongly tied to abiogenesis in the current paradigm, the two being considered together to philosophically remove any need for a higher being in history.

With regard to the second, in the article it is not said that Creation Science is itself a theory, but rather a paradigm that contains a collection of theories as its underpinnings. Many of those must be given full credit as scientific theories as they have modelled evidence and made predictions that have been later validated. This is why I specified special creation as a postulate rather than a theory.

Phantym 18:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I checked theory in my WordWeb dictionary. One definition is "A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena". RossNixon 23:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Major points

 * Focus of creation science: "Principal subjects of interest in scientific creationism are .." Why interest? I am temped to see this as somewhat of a Freudian slip, as no mention is made of research. Indeed, much of creation science seems to focus on attempting to disprove or discredit evolution, instead of actually finding proof of divinity.

 * I don't see what is so off the mark with that. Creationists see evolution and and old earth as their most significant counter-theories, so it makes perfect sense to attempt to show, via science, that the earth is young.

 * And it appears that a misconception has been perpetuated. Creation scientists do not, in general, try to prove creation. Just as scientists do not go about trying to prove (in general) uniformitarianism.  They attempt to show that the current model science uses is incorrect by showing that neither an old earth nor evolution are supported by modern observation. Phantym

 * While proving evolution wrong would probably be accepted as an affirmation of creationism, it would prove nothing. If creation scientists truly wanted to show they are right in believing what they do, they whould, I'd imagine, try to find proof of that. -- Ec5618 07:57, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * Defining evolution: Indeed, abiogenesis is not evolution. Yet creation scientists such as Kent Hovind define evolution as more generally, for example as ''"the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:
 * ''1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
 * ''2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
 * ''3. Matter created life by itself.
 * ''4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
 * ''5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).
 * Clearly, this article will need to make a better distinction.
 * I fully agree. Creationism should be presented in a light consistent with its own beliefs, and so should evolution.  Therefore, we should add ambiogenesis as a separate postulate.

 * Theory of creationism: I have a great problem with this. While several arguments could be made that according to the definition of theory, evolution is also not a theory, calling creationism a theory goes against the spitit of the word. This theory was not born out of scientific interest, but out of spite. I mean that creation science was only conceived of after science suggested that scripture might be wrong, and was created, basically, for other reason than to dispute that claim. Creation science does not seek to learn more about the universe (though a point could be made that for a creationist, studying creation science might be a way to connect to God). Creation science seeks to win back the hearts and minds of the following creation lost when science apparently disproved it. However scientific the methodology, instrumentation and wording of creation science might be or appear, at the core, creation science was never scientific.

 * Is it possible that you were making this post before I clarified mine above and then merged it without changing? I do not understand.  I clearly state that specific creation is not meant as a thoery in the paradigm of creation science.  It is taken as a postulate and used to inform other hypotheses.
 * Would you feel more comfortable calling the various theories discussed hypotheses? I would be okay with that.  The point is, no matter their intention if a model describes current evidence, makes predictions, and then has those predictions verified by experiment, it deserves the same respect any other such model has, regarless of where it stands in public opinion.-- Phantym 21:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Onesidedness: Even ignoring individual sections or lines showing bias, the article itself shows obvious bias by only representing the arguments used by creation scientists to discredit evolution, without specifying it. Any evidence that allows for the Earth to be young, does not prove creation is the truth, though it leaves very few alternatives. Also, the water canopy, flood geology, and plate tectonics should be mentioned as arguments made by creation scientists over the years.

-- Ec5618 19:48, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

 * If you would rather have it more clearly stated that Creation Science typically attacks certain basic beliefs in science, such as the age of the earth, age of the universe, or doctrine of evolution, tacitly assuming that the discreditation of these things would suggest creation, that is fine with me. As I said, creationists typically do not attempt to prove creation, they attempt to show that modern observables are more in line with creation and a young earth than against them.

 * The article does discuss the major challenges to creationism. The most specific challenge regards the age question.  That is treated in depth. If you know of other specific challenges that are not included, please feel free to add.  There are several challenges to specific parts of creationism, depending on what models one uses, and those challenges have been detailed in the discussion of various models.  Also, secular scientists have been quite vigorous in their debunking of various theories, and for every challenge that I could find a criticism of (a criticism that did not clearly misread the original model), I included such criticism, very often with a link for the reader.  Many of these links are to blatantly biased, uncivilized attacks, often attacks using poor science themselves, but in the interest of NPOV I have not commented on these. Phantym

 * The article accurately portrays the general endeavors of creation science. Sections on vapor canopy and other models could be added, so long as the description did them justice. Phantym

 * Perhaps you should reduce the arguments made by creationists to a categorised list, without passing judgement on them. You should also try to actively avoid everything you cut and pasted. This article was written by you, only you, and you have a limited understanding of the sciences. It is hard for another editor to look at this page and not see fault with it, and since no editor of this page actually fully understands what 'A modified Tolman relation' or what 'Enhanced brightness of SN for Z>1 that fits SN 1997ff findings' signifies, there is little hope of improvement, in my opinion. Hardly anyone will be able to comment on these uselessly complicated concepts.
 * It is my hope, at this point, to apply some of the suggestions you have made (inadvertently perhaps) in the writing of this article. I like the idea of spending time reviewing individual creation/evolution arguments. -- Ec5618 07:57, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Disclaimer
As a direct method of trying to deal with some of the objectsion, I have placed a disclaimer in the proposal. I hope this helps. Phantym

 * The disclaimer seems hardly fair.
 * ''".. and it is claimed that journals have even pulled support for papers post-approval when it was discovered that one or both of the authors had creationist leanings." Who claims this? Is it relevant in a disclaimer? It seems a little defensive to me.

 * It is relevant as giving one of many reasons why creationist science is hard to find in "mainstream" literature. One example of someone indicated the persecution faced by those wishing to publish in creationist journals can be found here

 * "Showing that their beliefs are not incompatible with known observations." That would still be attempting to show, or better Some creation scientists attempt to show that their beliefs are not necessarily incompatible with known observations.
 * Also, do you realise the implication of stating in your disclaimer that only 'believers' try their hands at creation science?

 * I am not sure what you are referring to. When I said their beliefs, I refer to the Phantym

Removed some POV, fixed evolution/ambiogenesis issue
I removed several of the statements that appeared to be my own obvious POV, and I added abiogenesis to the collection of things secular scientists tend to take as postulates.Phantym 00:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * As is mentioned on your Talk page, the correct spelling is abiogenesis (as in non-bio-create or creation out of un-life) not ambiogenesis.

 * There is much more POV here. I hope you can see that yourself. As a simple example, see User:Phantym/Creation science rewrite proposal, which links to 'An Open Letter to Closed Minds', and makes no reference to the reaction from scientists. A much better link might be, as it refers to the reception the letter got from the scientific community. You may also want to find the text of an article in the April edition of NewScientist of that year, which all but ridiculed the letter (as part of an April Fools gag). Its text should be included here.

 * The An Open Letter to Closed Minds is only tangentially related to creationism, and that link only being through the feeling that modern science has too much confidence in its own superstructure. I thought it could be taken for granted that those scientists can be taken to be in the minority. I have searched for any response on the net and have found very little [in fact, almost nothing] from any mainstream science. Sadly, I do not have access to the article you mention.

 * I think the list of explained phenomena that you mention is the only major chunk I cut and pasted (except some quotes). I have removed them. -Phantym

Newest edits and such
I pared down the number of arguments given by creationists from 15 to 8. I also added a specific argument given against creationism (and one that has caused a bit of embarrassment to the creationist community) in that section.

Currently, every one of the 13 challenges [5 challenges going one way, 8 going the other) contains criticism from the other side as well as articles/links to scientifically perspicuous discussions.

I also added another example in the "finding what they want to find" section, so that there are now 2 examples from each side.

I also removed a bunch of the discussion of cosmlogies, simply giving a link to the relevant article.

The size of the article proper is about 40k now [6k is used up by bibliographic material and the disclaimer]

-Phantym 16:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This version
It reads like a creationist screed with little in the way of actual information and a lot in the way of propaganda and incorrect "facts" being stated. It is generally a good idea to get one's information about science from citations that actually are connected with scientific institutions rather than religious institutions. This kind of propaganda is inappropriate for inclusion in the encyclopedia. As the article stands right now, it is much better. Joshuaschroeder 02:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GameFAX

 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 merge with GameFAQs. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

GameFAX
Non-notible. It's about an April Fool's Day prank for GameFAQ. -SocratesJedi | Talk 17:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete Non-notable, tedious. Bennie Noakes 20:10, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge Don't we have an April Fools Day topic that this would fit in? Sonic Mew 20:55, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * We do, but this prank is neither in/about Wikipedia nor widely enough noted to merit inclusion. Delete; I doubt many of the real site's users would consider this significant enough for even a note in the GameFAQs article.  Barno 20:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into GameFAQs. --Sn0wflake 23:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to GameFAQs. Megan1967 09:59, 31 May 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.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GameFAX