Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hot 100 number-two singles of 2008 (U.S.)


 * 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   delete. –Juliancolton Talk  ·  Review  00:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Hot 100 number-two singles of 2008 (U.S.)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

These two lists are unnecessary. The article titles are flawed, as a "number-two single" is defined as a song which peaked at number 2, correct? These lists include songs either on their way up or down from number one. Something like this fails WP:NOT in my opinion... why not a list of number-seven or number-thirty singles? An article for number-one songs makes sense, but I don't think the same applies for other positions. - eo (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete both I gotta agree with that this list is pointless-- and it has little meaning without the context of what which song was #1 while the entries on this list were #2; or why it left the spot-- did it rise to #1? Did it fall to #3 or #4?  Does anyone else really care?  Just because something can be done doesn't mean that it should be done. Mandsford (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Pointlessness Lets  drink  Tea  22:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a pointless list, per nom and mandsford. Tavix (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete both: WP:LISTCRUFT. JamesBurns (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete both completely pointless. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2009 (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.