Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of posthumous number-one singles (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 keep. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of posthumous number-one singles (UK)

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

The article/list does not convey the significance of having a posthumous number one, especially for only one chart from one country. It just points out that this person died then he/she had a number-one single in the UK. Nothing about an artist who reached number one shortly after death or one who reached number one 10 years afterwards. It's a trivial intersection, not any different than having such lists as number ones by a solo artist who was previously in a group/band or artists who reached number one after getting married, all of which could be sourced in a similar manner, but equally unimportant. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic of the list seems to be notable to me but the list would be improved by referencing this aspect. Since the list is currently at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of posthumous number-one singles (UK)/archive1 I have commented there suggesting such references as this. I am not wanting to edit the list at this particular time in its development. The notability of the intersection with UK is a highly subjective matter but intersection with country is very commonly used, to my mind helpfully. Thincat (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of a notable topic with clear inclusion criteria. Was a former DYK entry too, and the FL candidate adds strength to the article. Lugnuts (talk) 06:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't have a policy reason to say keep, but to ignore the policies: It is interesting information which people may want to lookup or which people may find out about incidentally while browsing Wikipedia. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep since article is at FLC. Not a trivial intersection per Thincat. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep quite focused topic and likely notable and verifiable. Dzlife (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems like a perfectly likely intersection to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.