Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:21, 15 August 2012

List of UK Singles Chart Christmas number twos

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

List of UK Singles Chart Christmas number twos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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 I Go Home 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)
  • 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 I Go Home 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 Misplaced Pages 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 I Go Home 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 I Go Home 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)

*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)

• 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 I Go Home 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? Dream 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)
    • If you have nothing to contribute to this discussion, why bother !voting? Jeez. Till I Go Home 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. Dream 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)

• 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 • 20:12, 14 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. Dream 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. Dream 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 I Go Home 04:47, 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:CSDWP: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 Misplaced Pages is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

• 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)

• AfD debates (Media and music)
• AfD debates