Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of UK Singles Chart Christmas number twos (2nd nomination)


 * 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 - numbers balance pretty heavily, but passing WP:N is demonstrated while failing WP:INDISCRIMINATE/WP:NOT (and the like) is merely asserted (and appears to be false, as far as I can figure it). Could be weak keep, but I think no consensus is closer. Wily D 09:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

List of UK Singles Chart Christmas number twos
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This is an unnecessary and trivial list about number two singles. Number twos are not notable and the article doesn't establish why they are notable. Note: this is a renomination following a previous no consensus close. Till 03:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Not only are number twos usually not important (as when calling a hit a hit it's either number one, top ten, top 20 or top 40), them being number two on the week of Christmas is extremely trivial.  Statυs ( talk ) 09:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The previous discussion, which was nominated by the same editor, closed just 13 days ago. Per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.".  Warden (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Warden does not have the right to accuse people of disruptive editing when he ignored the AfD merge decision for this very article with this edit.--Richhoncho (talk) 11:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

*Delete (as I said before). I will make a further comment for those advocating keep - There is nothing to say that Number 2s are notable. If that was established then it would not be up for AfD. Just saying "keep" because you like an article does not cut the mustard. NB Again I promise to change to keep if notability is established. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? I was already given leave by the closing administrator to renominate the article soon. So let's not jump to conclusions. Kthanksbye. Till 12:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And what are you expecting to achieve that we didn't do in the discussion earlier this month? Please see WP:NOTAGAIN, "Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially when ... only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination.". Warden (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "What are you expecting to achieve that we didn't do in the discussion earlier this month" ---> How about a consensus? The previous Afd was closed as no consensus and the closing admin gave me leave to renominate it. Till 13:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And what has changed that will make consensus more likely? Per WP:CCC, "if a subject has been discussed recently, it can be disruptive to bring it up again.". Warden (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Stop playing the 'disruptive nomination' card as an excuse to keep the article, the rationale for deletion is too important to be neglected. Till 13:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Too important? Why is this so important that it couldn't wait for another Christmas, say?  Warden (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The closing comment for the first AFD says nothing about starting another one "soon" (we normally relist an AfD if there are not enough comments, that had already been done and there were lots of comments after that) and I see nothing on your talk page about this. Please provide the diff where you have been encouraged to disregard normal practice. --Mirokado (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The diff is on my talk page, actually. My reply was unfortunately vague, in retrospect. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the prompt reply, Mark. If I may say so, the suggestion to start another AfD "soon" was wholly incorrect and I hope (assume) that you won't do that again! I suggest you close this immediately, with no prejudice to the opener or any subsequent review, as "out of process" and point out that the opener or anyone else has the option to procede to WP:DRV if they feel the closure was problematical. --Mirokado (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to have read the article which contains multiple sources establishing notability per WP:SIGCOV and WP:LISTN. Warden (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear Colonel, there is no point being shrill about this, I do note that you consider (nearly) every "list" article as being notable, which is your perogative, as it is mine to vote delete as and when I think that is the correct decision, The AfD was closed as no consensus, not save, so a second nomination was fully in order. I nearly nominated it the second time myself! What is worrying though is the failure of those who want to keep this list to bother to establish why they are notable. Hint: Why would somebody voting "delete" suggest it could be notable? If you want to query every "delete" then the article should go as a matter of principal, we do not need to be browbeaten by members of the military at WP (LOL!) --Richhoncho (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It provides sources that they were indeed number two on the week of Christmas. Where's the sources to show being number two on Christmas is notable?  Statυs ( talk ) 13:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is the existence of these sources which establishes notability - please see WP:GNG. Compare an article created by the nominator - List of number-one singles of 2005 (New_Zealand).  That has no independent sources and so does not pass WP:SIGCOV. Warden (talk) 13:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? We are here to discuss the article in question. Till 13:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There's quite a difference between both lists. One is number one singles in one year in New Zealand, while the other ones that were number two on the week that just so happened to be Christmas. Hmm...  Statυs ( talk ) 13:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What matters for determining notability, per WP:GNG, is the coverage in independent sources. The article in question has such coverage and so passes WP:GNG; the other article does not.  What you personally think of the relative merits of the UK and NZ is irrelevant.  It is the verdict of external professional editors and publishers which demonstrates that there is external interest in the topic. Warden (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me just create List of UK Singles Charts Christmas number 40's. If it got nominated for AFD, would you also vote to keep it? Seeing as how just because they indeed appeared at number two is enough for an entire list about it.  Statυs ( talk ) 13:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How about you stop just flapping your gums and prove that being number two on Christmas is notable. Maybe a book talking about all the songs that were number two on Christmas; an essay?  Statυs ( talk ) 14:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thats an unattractive turn of phrase; please try and contribute in a more collegial fashion. Talented scholars like the Colonel are in high demand. Disrespectful posts create an unpleasant editing environment and risk driving away good contributors. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy close (striking comment, user has !voted again below) .  The last one ended as "The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)" The same guy who nominated this last time, has started a new AFD 11 days later.  What the hell?  Someone close this already.  No consensus does not mean to keep repeating things until you get the result you want.  Do we need to contact everyone and tell them to repeat what they said last time?   D r e a m Focus  14:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No consensus means that there was no consensus to either delete or keep the article. I say "what the hell" to you saying "speedy close".  Statυs ( talk ) 15:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I had a dig around but couldn't find anything that indicated that the number twos were particularly notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a notable subject, a few sources does not establish notability. NapHit (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep POINTy/disruptive nomination.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever. What about the merit of the existence of the page?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Whatever" Shush - the grown-ups are talking.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, very constructive. Thanks for your ongoing positive contributions. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Likewise. Make sure the door doesn't hit you on your way out.  Lugnuts  (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Out of where? From your logic, perhaps it already hit you hard in the head.  Calling me an idiot?  Adults discuss things, they don't resort to name-calling.  You think your edit history allows you act like a WP:DICK?  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice way to try and hide your own POINTy/disruptive nomination. Looks like this is a keeper. Better luck next time!  Lugnuts  (talk) 06:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, it wasn't my nomination? Sorry that you got confused. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No one wants to hear from you. Your presence here is not needed. Till 07:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's obviously your first time here - read WP:POINT before you try again. Thanks!  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Remember that you are not always right, may I remind you of this in which your argument to keep the article completely failed. And can you please start to assume good faith first, there is really no need to act like an arse to everybody that you disagree with. You have now attacked two separate editors in the same discussion. 230,000 edits may be impressive but that is not an excuse for you to conduct with such a poor attitude. Which brings me back to my point before—if you have nothing to contribute here and just intend on insulting people, don't bother commenting again. Till 09:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have nothing to contribute to this discussion, why bother !voting? Jeez. Till 00:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: After the nominator spoke with me on my talk page, I said "Since it was a "no consensus" close, you can feel free to renominate fairly soon." I suppose "fairly soon" is a vague term, and I apologize for being unclear with that. While I'm here though, from the perspective of a closing admin, I felt that the arguments were pretty weak in the last round. For the sake of whoever closes this discussion, please try to stick to the list guidelines and sourcing rather than "If we keep this we'll have to create X article" type comments. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So you aren't closing this? Can we take every single no consensus close and have the same people renominate it 11 days later, and repeat it indefinitely with never ending AFDs until they get what they want?  Seems like gaming the system.   D r e a m Focus  21:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the way we usually handle renominations is to speedy close when there is a consensus to do so and to let it play out when there isn't. Am I overlooking a guideline somewhere? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I am surprised to see that WP:AFD is neither policy, guideline nor essay, but if we cannot rely on what that says (last time I quoted something with undefined status the reversion of my update was upheld for that reason, quite possibly correctly) the whole AfD process would appear to have severe problems, so I will point out that WP:BEFORE B "Carry out these checks" .4 says "Read the article's talk page for previous nominations and/or that your objections haven't already been dealt with." Obviously the objections were dealt with only a few days previously. "No consensus to delete" means "there is no consensus to delete this article" based on the policies and arguments presented in the relevant discussion (is it necessary to explain that to anyone any more clearly?) If anyone wishes to contest that decision we have WP:DRV which has been ignored in this case. I suppose it might be acceptable to start a new request straight away if subsequent events or changes to the article mean that new policies become relevant or new arguments can be presented, but, far from doing so, the proposer presented no new argument. Thus a summary of the rationale for the current request is "I don't agree with the previous decision, perhaps I will get lucky this time". Total time wasting and disrespect for the community and our processes. So I'm afraid the answer to your question is yes you did miss something we should treat as at least a guideline as well as the appropriate route which should have been followed if your decision were to be contested. We all know that every admin decision is wrong, so it is important that decisions are respected even when challenged. For those reasons this nonsense should be closed immmediately. --Mirokado (talk) 00:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to be formal, AFD is part of Deletion process, which makes it a process. KTC (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Renominating after a "no consensus" close is not disruptive. The criterion "Christmas" + "number 2" is doubly narrow, far more so than the countless "List of Number two hits on X chart" that have been almost unanimously deleted. #1 songs are notable enough to warrant a list; #2s are not. There is a long standing precedent of deleting "#2" lists. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So it is OK for every dissatisfied nominator to repeat non-consensus AfDs every two weeks until they get a result they like? Rubbish. This is totally disruptive and a waste of everyone's time. --Mirokado (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not disruptive. The previous Afd resulted in no consensus which is different to a keep closure. Establishing a consensus (keep, delete) in this Afd would be helpful. Now please zip it up, whining and carrying on about this isn't going to help. Till 07:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Ten Pound Hammer. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Same AFD, same people, same answer as last time. 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  21:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikiquette. If you are going to change your opinion from the speedy keep above you are supposed to strike your previous comment. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikiquette would be to not game the system and waste everyone's time with a pointless rerun. And I didn't change my vote.  I said to speedy close it as a waste of time, and now I'm saying to keep since for whatever reason this AFD is going to be allowed to continue.   D r e a m Focus  21:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So having said you said "speedy close" then "keep," but still have not deleted the superfluous comment. Hmm. Oh well it gives me a change to bring another thought, keeping it topical, I note there are no Lists of Silver Medallists in the Summer Olympics 2012 or similar, and yet I think I am assured that there are many many articles that would, according to some at this AfD, confer notability. The difference is that music, and specifically pop music, swims at the shallower ends of WP, that any kind of Expletive deleted is permissible. Yes, I know, WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't exist! --Richhoncho (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Immediately close with no further nominations for a minimum of 180 days. This is old, repetitious, and borderline vexatious and has been discussed ad nauseum over the course of several years with no progress or change. My stance on this issue remains to keep as there is a case of notability (and cause for notability) established in the sources. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Omg, get over it! The Afd process has already begun, and it's not disruptive if the previous Afd was a no consensus result. Till 04:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If this were indeed only the second nomination I would be somewhat more sympathetic but this isn't. It's at least the fourth by my estimate, and all three previous times we've had the same result. No consensus. We tried compromise, merging it with the #1s as a subsection, but that raised its own issues; then we tried to merge it into the main #1 tables and that raised its own objectors. Deleting would almost certainly bring even more objections (and headaches when somebody tried to retrieve the lost article). To continue to beat this issue into the ground when you, I and pretty much anyone with a connection to this topic knows what the result is going to be is the definition of insanity! (Of course, this is a British topic and British humour does tend to involve these sorts of long-running, frustrating jokes, so if this is all a ruse I would not be surprised.) J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as here we go again... The selection criteria is unambiguous, objective and supported by reliable sources, , , which satisfy WP:LISTN. The list is not indiscriminate, all or almost all entries meet the notability guidelines for its own article a la WP:CSD WP:CSC. KTC (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. 01:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 01:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. The argument used for keep at this AfD include

WP:SIGCOV and/or WP:GNG Which says, inter alia, "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
 * This says a subject can only be notable if there is significant coverage, it does not say MUST be notable if there is significant coverage, I can think of several things with more listings than No2s that do not have WP articles, Daily TV listings, Race Cards, Football Results etc etc etc.

WP:LISTN which says, “There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists”
 * “No consensus” can’t be used as a reason for keeping the article. It actually justifies point 4.

WP:LSC which says, “Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), membership criteria should be based on reliable sources.”
 * This could be valid, except without naming the No1 there is no context to the article which does lead to ambiguity. One of the concepts claimed for making this article notable is that you can bet on No2s. This is irrelevant, you can also bet on No1s. too, You can also bet on who will be at No5 (providing you can prove you have no insider knowledge). You can also bet on who will be President, the end of the world and two flies crawling up the wall. – I, ahem, “bet” I can verify this too!!!

WP:DELAFD Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.
 * As far as I can see there is no time limit guidance, so although it was quickly renominated, remember it was closed as “no consensus” not “keep.” We should assume WP:GOODFAITH in any event.

I did originally suggest that No2s could be notable, this was because a No2 at Xmas sells more that a No1 in August- this has always been the case unlike what some of the cited articles say. Another reason was that some consider that the real hit of the season to take the no2 slot while the corny Xmas-styled song gets the No1 slot. But this is not true and without the No1s listed in this article we shall never know. Where this list gloriously fails is Overlistification because it is the conjunction of C by T by D as provided B. i.e. Chart by Number 2 by date as provided by Betting Shop - and with no context! --Richhoncho (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * PS. I note that there is precedent that No2s are not notable, as per these recent AfDs. If No2s on their own are not notable, how can the further intersection of Xmastime make them notable? This needs explaining by those advocating "keep." --Richhoncho (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's now how things work. What happens in other AFDs, doesn't affect this one.  If they had reliable coverage found, then they might've been kept.   D r e a m Focus  14:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree, one of the most important parts of WP is precedent and now we have precedent - as mentioned by TenPound above. No matter how shrill and often you all shout this article is notable, nobody has bothered to say why. Your response above does not address anything. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I linked to articles in two major newspapers that proved it meets the general notability guidelines. And TenPoundHammer had a precedent of saying something has a precedent, linking to past unrelated articles, and ignoring any related articles that were kept.  That's a common tactic of his.  And its nonsense as always.  Each AFD is decided by the arguments presented within.   D r e a m Focus  15:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out in my long post above, being in a newspaper does not confirm notability, but means it may meet WP:GNG. Being offensive about another editor is not helping your cause, nor does it negate that No2s are losing AfDs without opposition! You still fail to establish notability for this article! --Richhoncho (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You can't at the same time say no one has demonstrate notability for an article and yet just ignore links to different newspaper articles (and magazine and book) when it is provided. If multiple indepedent reliable sources are provided that disucss a subject in sufficient depth, then the subject meet the general notability guidelines, which means notability has been established. Just because list of all number twos singles isn't considered notable doesn't imply list of all number two at Christmas is also not notable. Otherwise by that logic, it could be argued that list of number ones is not notable because the superset list of all singles isn't. -- KTC (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This deflects from the fact that #2s are deleted elsewhere, it deflects from the guideline quoted above that says being in a newspaper etc does NOT establish notability, it deflects from point I made that there is no context in a list of No2s. And most tellingly, it deflects from the fact you have not bothered to establish notability. Just look at the post below, "An interesting article on a highly notable subject" All I am asking is explain that and not one of you can!!! --Richhoncho (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't locate exactly which page you are referring to re. newspaper, but I'll take that as stated for the following. Merely being mentioned in a newspaper does not establish notability does not equate to newspaper articles cannot be used to establish notabilty which seems to me to be what you are implying. WP:N clearly give as an example in note 2 that newspaper is acceptable as sources for notability purposes. To establish notability under WP:GNG requires "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The four sources I linked to in my !vote above fulfil that. Did you even bother to read what I wrote before writing that I "have not bothered to establish notability"? You quoted FeydHuxtable saying that the sentence wasn't explained but only cared to quote one sentence out of the three. Could that be because Feyd provided that explaination you state was missing in the next sentence? Re. context, the context is that the entries are ranked second at Chrismas on the UK Singles Chart. One doesn't have to state who was number one that week to establish that a single was number two that week. -- KTC (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You accuse me of not reading when you say "I can't locate exactly which page you are referring to re. newspaper" just look for one of my posts on this page. Longest post, First Para. Quote from WP:GNG. Simple to find. If No2s are so important and notable, why not Olympians who came 2nd, Racehorses that came 2nd, even duellists who came 2nd, none of these exist at WP. I understand that Feyd and others are saying "look it's in a newspaper so it must be notable" I really hope that is not the whole comprehension of notability round these parts. All I am asking for one of you to explain - using quotes from those same newspapers if necessary why No2s are notable. If you are right it must be really easy to do, if, on the other hand, as I think, Xmas No2s (at least as THIS article presents it) are not notable then you cannot establish notability by any other than "blah blah blah it's in a newspaper." The longer it takes one of you to give me a straight answer to this straight question the more convinced I am the article has no merit (remember I did originally hint that it *could* be notable). Are my posts that hard to understand? --Richhoncho (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Re. link that you did or did not linked to. It is norm to link to a specific section of a page if you are making a statment based on it. The comment I originally replied to was the first time you mentioned "being in a newspaper etc does NOT establish notability". You linked to lots of other pages in your earlier comments, but had not mention such a point, so it's not too unsurpising that one cannot locate what it is exactly you were trying to say and from where you based such a point. And instead of linking to exactly the section of the page you meant when I quried, you linked to GNG and referenced an earlier reply which contained 5 links just in the first paragraph. If you meant WP:NOT, which is only a best guess from what you have written, which why not just link to it? WP:NOT#NEWS does not apply here as we are not talking about an article on a particular event reported in the news.

I'll start off by saying your example isn't exactly great considering List of gold medalists doesn't exist either. However, Lists of Olympic medalists does exist. More genearlly, it doesn't matter whether you or I believe no. X are important and notable or not. What matters is whether independent reliable secondary sources consider the matter noteworthy enough to cover in detail. What Feyd and I are saying are not "look it's in a newspaper so it must be notable". What we are saying are, , , are independent reliable sources that is writing about Christmas No. 2 in the first 3 cases, and No. 2 in general in the last case, and that it had address the subject in detail and as such fulfil the criteria laid down in WP:GNG. As such, notability of the subject has been established for the purpose of WP:N. You can of course disagree with our interpretation of whether the linked to sources have covered the subject in sufficient details to satisfy GNG, but that isn't what you have been doing in the recent comments. -- KTC (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Aside. KTC wrote, I'll start off by saying your example isn't exactly great considering List of gold medalists doesn't exist either I have been laughing my head off at the delicious irony of this sentence. Using the non-existance of a list of No1s to justify a list of No2s. LOL. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly I quoted the fifth bullet point of WP:GNG which is what some of you are using as the reason this is notable. Go and check it out.
 * Secondly, The reason that No2s are notable is because... they are NOT No1, (are you with me still?).
 * Each newspaper article refered to actually names the No1 in some form or another. If you remove the No1 from the WP article then there is ABSOLUTELY no notability for being No2 or anything other position. This is why this article, under its present title and present content should be deleted and other articles about No2 have already been deleted. Interesting or trivia, you decide, sometimes the difference is HOW it is done, not what is done. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, from what I can see, the 5th bullet point of GNG clarify the meaning of presumption of notability and does not say "being in a newspaper etc does NOT establish notability". Re. your second point, again, that's your personal opinion. What matter is not personal opinion but coverage in secondary sources. The question is, does the sources cover the subject in question, in this case Christmas number two and I belive it does. Obviously, you don't. We just have to agree to disagree I'm afraid. KTC (talk) 22:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So I have personal opinions and you don't? Because you are right? That really is a pile of No2s and you know it, as is the keep for this article. Oh well, I've have had a little fun in the shallower end of WP. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh for heaven's sake. How many time does I have to say it. It doesn't matter what your or my or any other user personal opinion is on the importance or notability of number two as a topic by and itself. What matter is whether there are multiple independent reliable secondary sources that cover the topic in details. Your opinion on that is more than welcome and like I said I can see differ to mine, which is fine, we just have agree to disagree. If you can't understand the difference between the two, then I can't help you.... -- KTC (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. An interesting article on a highly notable subject. At least two of the sources already present are entirely about the subject, which is more than GNG requires. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Get real, no one is going to "speedy keep" the article now that there have been issues raised by various separate editors. Also, it is the article's encyclopedic value and merit that is being disputed here. The list is trivial and indiscriminate, per WP:GNG (the same guideline you are citing), '"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Till 09:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly pass WP:GNG; per the above, also. TBrandley 19:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless, meeting WP:GNG is irrelevant when the list is trivial and indiscriminate. Per WP:NOT, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Till 09:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. This does have multiple sources that cover the actual topic. It shows as well the impact of the Christmastime chart in the UK versus any other week and this race for being number one. The intro is kind of sucky because it seems to imply that being number two can lead to being a more revered song in the long run, but one has nothing to do with the other. Because of the sources, though, this has some merit compared to other number-two lists that have been attempted. Those are created by taking each week's chart, seeing what was number two, and making the list from that. The number-one lists I understand, because at least there is some anticipation as to each week's number one among fans and the industry (although I don't why we need a list of number ones for every minor and insignificant chart just because its published in a trade paper — I'm talking about you Luxembourg Digital Songs. I'd like to see the same type of coverage in reliable sources with those that this one has.). -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 23:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As the person who rote that "sucky" paragraph, I wrote it there as a demonstration of the list's notability-- that although those songs ended up at #2 on a chart where #1 is particularly important, the #2 song also has widespread popularity as well. In some cases, that #2 goes on to become even more popular than the song that beat it (as stated in the paragraph, all three of the top three PRS top Christmas songs in 2010 were previous #2's). Is its presence a little clumsy? Perhaps, but I felt it necessary (or, at the very least, helpful) to establish why the #2 was notable in and of itself. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * With the above in mind, I did some significant revision of that paragraph that hopefully explains things better. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Though I acknowledge that such a quick nomination after the last AfD is bad form. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * Comment to those voting keep If number twos aren't notable on any normal time of year, how the hell are they notable on Christmas? This question was asked earlier and no one cared to respond.  Statυs ( talk ) 09:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure what sort of answer you'd find helpful, so I'll try and answer you in three ways. From a guideline point of view, they're notable because there are multiple independent sources that cover the phenomena, with several sources not just covering the topic, but being entirely about Christmas No 2s.
 * The AfD you linked to doesn't prove No2s arent notable on there own, all it proves is that an AfD resulted in delete. Even as an irregular AfD participant, I can recall dozens of times when deletionists have falsely claimed a topic is not noteable due to haveing no sources. All thats necessary for a non attack page to be deleted is for few sensible editors to turn up at its AfD. This relates to why we object to the renom after such a short time - many of us like to spend our wiki time improving articles, not defending other people's hard work.
 * Thirdly, for the moderately Christian and / or traditionally minded folk who form the majority of the population in Great Britain and elsewhere, all kinds of things become more significant at Christmas. Hence they get coverage, and hence they become notable.FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Didn't answer my question at all. Please take a look at WP:LISTCRUFT, and in the case of your third point "The list is of interest to a very limited number of people".  Statυs ( talk ) 10:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The first point is the key one, as AfDs are decided by policy based rationale. If you didn't understand my explanation, please read the excellent and very clear rationales from KTC, Dream, StarCheers and others. Its regretable if youre not able to grasp why this is notable, but happily it doesn't matter much for the fate of the article. The purpose of this project to preserve and display useful knowledge, not to destroy it, and hence no consensus defaults to keep. You guys have failed to convince that there's any merit in the case for deletion. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it weird how everybody seems to dance around my question.  Statυs ( talk ) 12:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Most articles, list or otherwise, are only of interest to a limited number of people. And kindly read the disclaimer at the top of that.  This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors on the Wikipedia is not a directory policy. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies.  Its just an opinion piece.  Anyone can write those.    D r e a m Focus  12:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct WP:LISTCRUFT is only an essay, but does reference the following policies and guidelines, some of which should be considered in relation to this discussion :-
 * What Wikipedia is not
 * WP:NN
 * WP:Verifiability
 * WP:NPOV
 * WP:NOR
 * WP:SYNTH
 * Again you are being disengenious - you are fully aware that Status is using the essay as a shortcut to these policies. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you know that? It seems unlikely you can read Dream's mind.  Please dont make further comments on AfD participants, and instead explain how this useful and interesting article violates each of those policies and guidelines. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Richhoncho, none of those policies or guidelines are listed on the essay page he linked to. Also, he specifically quoted a line from it "The list is of interest to a very limited number of people" which I did specifically respond to.   D r e a m Focus  19:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Keating is equally blunt when asked if next single, Better, can indeed go one better than debut single Love Me For a Reason, the Christmas number two in 1994. 'In this day and age, a single, without sounding too corporate, is a tool to sell the album. 'We're not going for the number one for Christmas,' he adds. 'You can't compete against X Factor, charity records and so on. ...'"
 * Keep Since it is obvious that the requests to close this as invalid will not be actioned I suppose I must respond. In saying "keep" I'm agreeing in particular with KTC's contributions to the discussion, in addition:
 * notability is clearly established by the bookmakers' decision to promote betting on the number two position, which is completely different from the diffuse ability for a punter to arrange a bet on more or less anything. In addition to the references already mentioning this, Digital Spy reports: "William Hill is encouraging punters to bet on who will reach this year's Christmas number two spot", quoting a William Hill spokesman: "The annual X Factor single has wiped out a national institution. There's little real competition for the top single on Christmas Day, so we've opened a book to open the race up again." Note "encouraging" and "opened a book". I will update the article to clarify this.
 * notability also results from another consequence of the domination of X-factor: the race for the number two spot has become a significant commercial goal for performers and record companies in its own right, for example the BBC reports an interview with Ronan Keating of Boyzone:"'We're five guys at the top of this corporate chain.'
 * This reference is a bit problematical as the reporter confuses "in the charts for Christmas and reached number two in early January" with "Christmas number two". In fact "Love Me For a Reason" was number three in the 1994 Christmas charts, but Keating's quote establishes the point about the importance of the number two spot. It was reasonably easy to find this reference so I imagine there are others too. I will look further before adding it to the article, but I think the this will do to establish the case for this discussion.
 * the list criterion is clearly selecting a subset of number two hits which are notable, as indicated by the fact that out of 60 entries there are only two redlinks (both of which entries have an inline source) and another two redirects to the artist. It is also reliably selecting the items which are notable for the two reasons just mentioned (plus coresponding items from earlier years).
 * --Mirokado (talk) 11:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Mirokado, many thanks for the above, it is much appreciated by me, if not others. I can't speak for other deletists on the matter, but my problem is "List of No2s" - I am not opposed to an article about the phenomena that is Xmas charts, (much of which you touched on above) including gambling, volume of sales, importance to artists, how the demographics of the buying public changes at Xmas, how it is perceived that the "great song" is No2 whilst the corny Xmas song is the best seller (something the links disproved for me last week!) - there is a real classy article to be written. Unfortunately instead we are offered a List of Xmas No1s and a List of Xmas No2s as separate articles as if there is no connection between the two. For myself - and I really do think I am amongst the majority here - If song X is No2 in 1985 I'd like to know what was number one in the same year. Irrespective of how the final !vote goes, I trust you all understand why I am not in favour of this article. Again, thank you, Mirokado for your time and explanation. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a true merger of the articles may be in order; i.e. a Christmas UK Singles Chart article or something along those lines (although merging the two lists together may be a bad idea) that doesn't give undue weight to the number-ones alone. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi JMyrleFuller, How about moving your thoughts across for a discussion on the relevant talk pages for a merger when this discussion is closed as keep? Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong delete a list of number 1's is barely acceptable on Wikipedia in any musical format. A list of runners-up?  Pure fancruft.  Delete, salt, light on fire.  dangerous  panda  11:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So what WP:POLICY does this violate? And there's no apostrophe in "number 1's". Isn't "EatsShootsAndLeaves" a book about schoolboy grammar mistakes? Thanks.  Lugnuts  And the horse 12:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Thanks. Till 12:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:VAGUEWAVE. Thanks.  Lugnuts  And the horse 12:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You asked for the policy, he told you the policy. Why are you being so deliberately unhelpful?  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I was about to say the same thing as above, and got an edit conflict.  Statυs ( talk ) 13:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you need to reference the specfic policy instead of blindly pointing to it. If it's so clear, please point out exactly how it fails. How is asking for expansion of your !Vote unhelpful? Surely it will help the closing admin.  Lugnuts  And the horse 13:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But your reason for deletion was "POINTy/disruptive nomination", and then you went on to attack other users? Hmm...  Statυs ( talk ) 13:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it IS a POINTy/disruptive nom. Thanks.  Lugnuts  And the horse 13:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "You need to reference the specfic policy instead of blindly pointing to it." <font face="Arial" size="2em"> Statυs ( talk ) 13:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Checkmate. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Finally! Wow.  Lugnuts  And the horse 13:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Clearly pass WP:GNG. Also Christmas Top 5 overall are a huge deal in the UK every year. So a list like this one and some additional information would be benefiting the Wikipedia.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It "clearly" doesn't pass GNG, otherwise, it wouldn't be here now. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists in the world or has existed. Prove that number twos on the UK Singles Chart on the week of Christmas are notable. <font face="Arial" size="2em"> Statυs ( talk ) 20:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont have to prove anything. This article passes WP:GNG. Why instead of questioning many of the Keep opinions, you just let this AfD run its course as you can not influence the read trough and final decision of the closing user/admin anyway. You can do that only by your own comments at your own !vote.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You have to provide evidence that it supports WP:GNG; it "clearly" doesn't pass, as I'll say again, or it wouldn't be here. In a AFD, if you are voting keep, you have to disprove what the nominator is stating. You, or anybody else in this AFD, for that matter, have failed to provide any evidence to support that number twos on the week of Christmas are notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Please, show me where I "keep question keep opinions". I believe you're the only person I actually even responded to. <font face="Arial" size="2em"> Statυs ( talk ) 23:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So the whole disagreement seems to be soley based on each of our own interpretation of WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." To me, the sources present seem to indicate it has met these requirements. Is it that these sources aren't reliable, that the coverage is not significant, or that they are not independent of the subject? I'll gladly change my !vote to delete if I can be convinced of that, because I do agree that there are way too many lists like this that are even more meaningless (anyone see List of Social 50 number-one acts of 2012? Holy Cow!). Thanks. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 00:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * More than one of us have provided links to what we considered sufficient sources to satisfy WP:GNG. If you disagree with that assessment, please provide your argument on why instead of saying we haven't presented any evidence. Re. the AFD existing, it exist because someone has nominated it. The existence of a deletion discussion does not provide evidence one way or the other as to the merit of the nomination rationale. -- KTC (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Meeting WP:GNG doesn't automatically make a topic suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. WP:NOT applies here, which states that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". The fact of the matter is that number twos are trivial. I bet there's an article out there on the internet about berries with health benefits. Does that mean we create a List of berries with health benefits article? The answer is no. Till 04:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting that Status is telling me to justify my WP:GNG say when he himself does not elaborate anywhere his reasons for actual deletion. Just saying. It meets WP:GNG and if you are looking for weak reasons for deletion..then look under this statement and you find two.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Here you go Status, you definitly have responded to other users at this AfD who are of a Keep opinion.. And here you are questioning every single Keep sayer at this AfD.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete It was non-notable listcruft the first time around, and it still is. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We need real reasons which are based in guidelines.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT—"merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Till 14:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Still not a reason for deletion at this particular AfD.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You asked for a reason—I gave you a reason—why are you rejecting it? Till 15:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per this AfD.—indopug (talk) 08:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's now how this works. You need to state why you believe this article should be deleted.  You can't just say, hey, something similar got deleted, so this should be deleted also.  That article didn't have reliable sources proving it was notable, so totally unrelated to the situation here.   D r e a m Focus  11:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, but surely this AfD to merge is more than enough precedent for this article? --Richhoncho (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No it is not.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * (In best pantomime voice), "OH yes it is" because it is THIS article. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That comment doesnt really help your cause, more so the opposit. I am aware of that, still it is not a precedent for the result of this AfD. And so invalid reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please explain how an AfD on this article does not affect this article? --Richhoncho (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Because this is a new AfD process on the same subject but in my opinion improved article since 2010. If we followed your opinion if a article is Merged once then it can never be returned and kept. Also when looking trough that AfD discussion I have to say that I am confused how it could be a merge decision by the closing user. Anyhow,you can not use a two year old AfD result as a reason for deletion now, that is just odd just as odd as using another articles AfD result as reasoning for deletion as user Indopug is doing.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Then I need explanations from you concerning your claim that an old AfD result can be used as a reason for deletion/merge now? --BabbaQ (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Touché! Because there was a consensus that it should be merged and one editor has unilaterally decided that consensus did not concern them, should have no affect on them and could ignore consensus entirely. I wouldn't want that kind of attitude rewarded - even if it supported my opinion! That editor should have raised a deletion review. After all the shouting about guidelines (from both sides of this debate) I can't see how we can ignore total disregard of all guidelines, decisions etc however historical!--Richhoncho (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * An old AfD can not be used as a precedent for the result of this AfD. You should know better. End of discussion.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Guideline or opinion? --Richhoncho (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am following the guidelines. And you are following old insignificant AfD results in this particular case.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Then please point me to those specific guidelines. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont feel any need to repeat myself as I have pointed out that in previous posts. You on the other hand is refering to an old AfD result which obviouslt can not count as a precedent for how this AfD should end. You are the one who has to explain yourself and this time without accusations and ridicule as response.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is all getting a little too long but is someone suggesting the result of a previous, very poorly attended and prematurely closed AFD should have some bearing on this discussion? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You can join the discussion if you feel like it here user Rambling man.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That discussion, if relevant, should take place here. And FWIW, in my opinion, an undersubscribed and rapidly closed/implemented merge with little consensus two years ago has no relevance to this much more expansive debate.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good that you see reason Rambling Man. I agree a two year old AfD debate however closed is not relevant to this discussion. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That discussion established that there is no guideline that says a previous AfD should be ignored. That leaves, "Is an old AfD relevant" - certainly to an extent, how relevant here is another issue. I am am happy that it is now noted there has been an AfD on this very article and the decision was merge. I am also happy to confirm that two other editors think it is not so relevant because it was poorly attended (i.e. went against their opinion) and closed early and was 2 years ago (actually nearer 18 months). --Richhoncho (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is that the AfD you are refering to was closed to rapidly and anyone can see that it was closed without a clear consensus for merge. Also a factor in that being a non-reason for deletion is that the AfD was done and closed 2 years ago which can also not be used as a precedent for merge/delete now. Again, an old rapidly closed AfD with no clear consensus for keep can not be used as a precedent in this current AfD. And the fact that you can not let this particular discussion at this AfD go is starting to make this into a meta-debate. A meta-debate which have proved that you were wrong about your assumptions concerning using old AfDs as a reason to merge/delete this time in affect. And I leave it at that and refer anyone who wants to know what the previous closing user had to say here.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You turned this part of the discussion into "there are guidelines not to use old AfDs." This is patently untrue. You knew it was untrue when you said it and so does everybody else now. If you read my comment I had already pointed out the reasons you and another editor didn't place much store on the AfD. Other editors will be able to make up their minds without thinking "there are guidelines that mean I have to ignore the old AfD --Richhoncho (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't see where in that AFD we established that previous AFDs set a guideline for how future AFDs be conducted. Can you direct me to that explicitly please?  Old AFDs are interesting background, but nothing more.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Rambling Man, I am not sure I understand your question. Any previous discussion of any hue and at any place (whether you or I or anybody else agree with it) relating to this article for the very same reasons this AfD is marked "2nd nomination" is relevant. An Old AfD on this article is worth noting and is not subject to BabbaQ's "there are guidelines..." I think I have acknowledged that the amount of relevance is disputed. If I misrepresented you in this I do apologise. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I disagree. Previous discussions, while interesting, are not really relevant.  New contributors, new ideas, new guidelines, new references may be available since then, especially the previous AFD was two years ago.  If you still think the comments etc from previous AFD relevant, have you checked each of them against previous and current guidelines, references etc?  All I'm saying is that this AFD should now encapsulate the discussion entirely, taking into account the status quo.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Rambling Man, I agree with you to the extent that the closing admin will not take into consideration any previous discussion, and I wouldn't want them to either. Relevance for the contributing editors will vary the whole spectrum, If somebody doesn't think it relevant that's their choice, no AfD is written in stone. However, my complaint was about people who suggest, quite incorrectly, that there are guidelines to ignore previous AfDs and then go on to misquote me and call me a liar. As we no longer appear to be discussing the AfD more than happy to continue the conversation elsewhere (when this AfD is closed?). Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Again you were the one claiming that guidelines were available to justify old AfDs to be used at new AfDs as a reason for closure as Merge/delte. The only one misquoting someone else here is you. And now that I have proved that you were in wrong you dont even have the decency to respond back to me and atleast give an apology instead you direct comments to Rambling Man and continue to give baseless accusations towards me. But that is OK as we both know you where wrong here. So yes this is definitly closure for me too! Sincerely.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * BabbaQ, I thought you weren't responding to me! Your posts are a matter of record on this page. If you think I have lacked wikiquette, please report me. No further conversations between us are required or wanted.--Richhoncho (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That is fine by me. But I am still just confused on this guideline accusation which is totally baseless as it was you that talked about guidelines. And I guess you stopped responding to me when I proved that in fact you were the one bringing the guideline business up in the discussion. Anyway, this discussion is over and as you say further conversation between us are not required or from my side wanted. Bye.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Richhoncho, you are the one talking about guidelines. Not me I am talking only of a personal opinion and have never claimed anything about guidelines. It is time for you to either bring the guidelines concerning the use of old AfD results in new AfDs to the table or stop these accusations against me concerning me bringing up any guidelines in our discussions. I hope that you do have guidelines to support your claims. Just for the record.... as you are once again accusing me of things without any basis, which is quite sad.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Richhoncho, you seem to be telling a few lies here. The one who started the guideline talk was you. And you claimed that you had basis for this "old AfD result trumps new AfD result" claim trough guidelines by this comment Because there was a consensus that it should be merged and I can't see how we can ignore total disregard of all guidelines, decisions etc however historical. I have to ask then, which guidelines did we disregard concerning old AfDs? Then you had to ask the closing user if there were infact any guidelines to support any side of the argument, but if you knew there wasnt any guideline how can you then claim there is a guideline for using old AfD results as basis for deletion of a newer AfD of the same subject? Troughout our discussion I have only told "my personal opinion" and when I wrote I am following the guidelines I was refering to my !vote on the basis of WP:GNG, while you kept throwing accusations and random "why is it not notable, because I say so" arguments around. So you see, you were the one turning the discussion into  "there are guidelines to use old AfDs in new AfDs as basis for closure as delete/merge." not me. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And I will not respond any further as we both know that I am right here. Just move on and let this one go. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have been canvassed to come here, unfortunately, so my opinion can be rendered moot by the closing admin if they wish. I'm going to say keep if only to keep this content well away from List of UK Singles Chart Christmas number ones and to avoid another merge to make a useful article (and a featured list, no less) completely pointless. If this could be deleted I'd say that, but I think there's enough coverage of number twos to keep this alive for the time being. — foxj 15:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Been through this before. It is not canvassing.  I contacted everyone who wasn't here already regardless of how they voted last time.   D r e a m Focus  15:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. I think we should try hard here to make it either delete or not delete.  Remerging this material into the Number Ones list is not clever at all, and would result in a lot of inconsequential data being added.  This "number two" phenomenon is relatively new while the Xmas No. 1 has been going for decades.  It's a blip on the edge of the significance of the number one.  If anything, I'd prefer to !vote to keep this cruft than this discussion result in the corruption of a half-decent list of actually notable Xmas No. 1s.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how WP:NOT applies here. This goes beyond "merely being true, or even verifiable" because the topic has received significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. A list of number 3s, number 12s and, heck, even most of the number 1 lists that already exist on Wikipedia would be/are based on true and verifiable information but receive no coverage in other sources and I would !vote delete every single time in AfD. I don't see that being the case here. This is a very entertaining discussion by the way, albeit understandably frustrating for some. Thanks. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 19:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There was a tsunami in Narnia last week (Ho!). The headlines in the papers were, "1000s killed in tsunami" and "Million dwellings lost in tsunami" and if you look in the Narnia WP there are two list articles, one about houses destroyed and another about the deaths, however there is no article about the tsunami, with a only passing reference to tsunamis generally in the oceans article. There wasn't even a mention that many were killed in the destroyed houses. My argument has always been that the tsunami is the notable part, irrespective of what the headlines said. There is no article on Christmas Charts, just this and another list which contain much of the informaton and references that should go in that article.
 * I would also opine, that unless this is addressed then this article will be nominated again and again as being NN until it finally deleted - and, for myself, I certainly don't want to see another AfD, whatever the final outcome! --Richhoncho (talk) 08:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - such lists could go on forever. List of UK Singles Chart Christmas number threes or List of (name country) Singles Chart Christmas number (name number). Is there no sense of what belongs in an encyclopedia? Anything goes? MathewTownsend (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just because we have other lists on Wikipedia with songs doesnt mean this one should be deleted. And possible created lists in the future are not a reason either for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Such lists could not go on forever unless there was significant coverge in reliable sources for each of those other positions. There isn't. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 18:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL, but you see, they don't exist, so how does WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS apply, again? <font face="Arial" size="2em"> Statυs ( talk ) 00:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The example shows it includes other stuff doesn't exist arguments as well in that.  D r e a m Focus  00:46, 20 August 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.