Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christmas number two singles in the UK


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   merge to List of Christmas number one singles (UK). Courcelles 18:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas number two singles in the UK

 * – ( View AfD View log )

With the number one list featured there is really no need for this article to exist. It's almost like a "not-quite" inclusion. f o x 16:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The list of records reaching no. 2 is a different list to those reaching no. 1. On a similar basis, should all people receiving silver and bronze medals at the Olympics be removed? This subject is often asked in quizzes, games etc. - and can be a source for settling arguments with friends, colleagues. Annabelle1976 (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not really for an encyclopedia, though, is it? This ain't IMDB or allmusic. f o x  19:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Strong keep This list shows many of the songs that have come to be recognised as "greatest hits" of Christmas, and, because the race for Christmas number 1 is highly publicised each year, it is noteable who came second in that race, because the comparison between the two lists shows to the reader the vagaries of the record buying public. It does this much more effectively than a list of number 1s alone. It is inherently interesting, given the highly noteable acts at Christmas number 2, and is noteable. The Chrismas week is almost always the highest single selling week in the year, so a list of number 2s gives a much better idea of the UK's music taste each year than number 1s alone, which so often have been highly marketed "gimmick" records. Boleslaw (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete clearly inappropriate topic. #1 singles are important by definition, but #2, #3, #39, #112, whatever aren't. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: in any other case, a list of number twos would not be noteworthy, but this is the Christmas chart (which, for the past three years, has been the subject of intense media speculation), and the fact that bookmakers started taking bets on this market indicate there is enough public interest in the topic that may translate to notability (which the Telegraph article seems to convey too). Sceptre (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Do they take money on the number two? f o x  23:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes they do. Paddy Power and other bookies are taking odds now on number 2 and have done for a few years.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boleslaw (talk • contribs) 00:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)  Boleslaw (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How bizarre. f o x  00:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really; after the third X-Factor series, reality shows were assumed to have such a lock on the spot that bookmakers thought it'd be more profitable to take bets on the runner-up instead. It's a common practice with bookies, especially in Britain, to run "without the favourite" markets. Sceptre (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye, I know, "without the big four"'s a popular one in sports betting. But we don;t have an article on 'what season x would look like if there were no big four', do we? Seems daft to keep this for the same reason. f o x  11:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Because for most sports markets, this can be inferred from the normal season articles. For example, there's a "without the big four" market for the Premier League (Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool) which can be easily found for last year; i.e. for last year, the article makes it clear it would've been Spurs. So any article for these other without-the-favourite markets, they'd be quickly merged... but probably not for this article. Sceptre (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So you're basically saying "Keep because not all the entries are them off X Factor"? Seems a bit petty. f o x  01:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. There's a bit of an arbitrary line to draw here, but if the bookies are taking odds on this, I think I can assume the Christmas no, 2 is getting enough attention to scrape notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Christmas number one singles (UK). I accept that the #2 spot is of interest, but the interest is purely derivative of the #1 spot (by definition!) so it's best to merge. TiC (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ...Merge? And make a Featured List twice as long (and therefore twice as clumsy?) f o x  10:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Only 62 items in the current list, and anyway there are hidden begin available if desired. TiC (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge I agree that this could be merged with UK christmas number 1s, with a chart shoeing the Christmas number 1 and 2 each year, as those who are interested in Christmas number 2 each year will almost certainly be interested in the Christmas number 1 for that year. I don't know how to do this with the article though.  Boleslaw (talk) 11:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
 * Comment: Maybe instead of having the Christmas number two singles in the UK, have the Christmas Top 10 singles or Top 5 singles in the UK? --SATURDAYmight. (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)