Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of UK Singles Chart Christmas number twos


 * 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   no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

List of UK Singles Chart Christmas number twos

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

WP:Listcruft, indiscriminate. Number-one singles are inherently notable by definition and that's why there are lists for those. Number-two singles are quite trivial and do not require such a list. Till 15:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete this might be going a bit far. OSborn arfcontribs. 17:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep No policy-based reason to delete has been provided as WP:Listcruft is just an essay which only amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The general concept of the list is notable per WP:LISTN, as evidenced by the Independent feature and other works such as The Billboard Book of Number Two Singles. Warden (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It backs up WP:INDISCRIMINATE as it's main point of argument and that's policy-based. Till 01:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per notability assered by Warden. A line is drawn, but how is number ones inherently notable and number twos quite trivial? The list is not indiscriminate, all or almost all entries meet the notability guidelines for its own article per common selection criteria. The topic itself has actually gotten more notable since the raise of reality shows and its winner almost always taking the Christmas number one spot. KTC (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Because number-ones are just that, number-ones. Number two is trivial, just like number 6, 19, 43, 124, etc. Till 01:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This was already nominated for deletion here, and the primary reason for keeping is that bookmakers are now taking bets on the outcome of the number two slot as well as for the number one. Since this has not changed, I'll stick my neck out and say keep. — foxj 08:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Which notability criteria states that 'taking bets' on a chart placement warrants a list about that particular number? Till 14:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nowhere in the article does it establish why No 2's are notable - whether at Xmas or otherwise. If somebody could establish why No 2s are notable I will change my opinion. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. Number twos... LOL. Statυs  (talk) 09:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that song's are referred to as either a "number one", "top five" (not very often), "top ten", "top twenty" or "top forty" hit. Statυs  (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. There's one lone newspaper article dealing with serious songs being upstaged by novelties "in the week in which Christmas Day falls", which is only a subset of this list. What next? List of thirteen ranked songs on Halloween and Friday the 13th? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is coverage of this topic in multiple sources - I have added some more citations. Warden (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Of no intrinsic value. Delete now, before we end up discussing List of UK Singles Chart New Year's Day number threes! Emeraude (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Some UK singles are notable for only getting to number 2 (Vienna (Ultravox song) being a very well known example), but not specifically for Christmas. A List of notable UK number 2s (if you'll pardon the scatological pun) might be worthwhile. -- Ritchie333  (talk)  13:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The arbitrariness of this list borders on parody. Not to mention that there's little notability here related to them being #2 Christmas songs. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not difficult to find more sources which discuss this topic - I have added some more. Warden (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I read some of the references in the article and and  do provide enough coverage to prove this subject meets the General Notability Guidelines.   D r e a m Focus  00:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What needs to be said about the number two singles can be done on the relevant articles. Creating a list about it is pretty nonsense if you ask me, I have been on Wikipedia for a long time and this is the first time I have seen a list about number-two singles. Till 01:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What relevant articles? I analyze what was in the sources.  Think of this is any other topic.  Something gets significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, then it can have a Wikipedia article.  OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a valid reason to delete something.   D r e a m Focus  07:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're correct, it isn't, hence why I already based the nomination on policy (WP:INDISCRIMINATE etc). The relevant articles are those singles that were number-two eg. 'x peaked at number two on the week of the Christmas number one'. Till 09:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I know that in the past this topic has been bludgeoned to death in previous AFD nominations that have received "no consensus." Now, this is just my opinion here, and I'm an American so take that into account, but it appears that the number-two position has at least some notability given the sources. While I'd generally agree that continuing down the list to #3, #4, #5 etc. would be arbitrary, and no source has actually tried to compile statistics or establish notability for those numbers, #2 seems to have enough to support it. Considering several Christmas classics and very popular songs have ended up at #2, songs that have become even more popular in the long run than the #1's, I believe it's notable enough to keep around. Again, just my opinion. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per the Colonel, Dream and J. Myrle Fuller. A useful article about a culturally important topic. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So WP:PERNOM and WP:ITSUSEFUL? Till 13:54, 31 July 2012 (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.