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. Not surprisingly, a hard one to call! The consensus is just in favour of deleting; the arguments on both sides are very compelling, with many respected editors on both. The consensus seems to be that the event is notable, and mentioned in relevant article(s) - but that this list is not in itself notable enough for the list to exist -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have turned on the Oxford Street Christmas lights[edit]

List of people who have turned on the Oxford Street Christmas lights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics

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

Violates WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information); this list appears arbitrary -- what makes the Oxford Street Christmas lights any different or any more notable than anyone else's Christmas lights? mhking (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• These are the Christmas lights on the busiest shopping street in Europe. The switching on of the lights has also become something of a tradition, it is attended by thousands of people and receives considerable media coverage, as is already evidenced to some extent by the citations in the article. A lot more could be found. The list is getting too long to include in the main article and is more appropraite for a separate 'list' break out article. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Merge - Well layed out and cited list that is a good extension of the Oxford Street article. I think it could be merged into the parent article without making it too big but as it stands I think it's fine. - Pmedema (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If any "turning on the lights" ceremony is notable then Oxford Street would be near the top of the list. However, we need to observe some kind of notability for this list. Would even one of these notable people think the ceremony was worth even one line in their autobiography? I very much doubt it. The people are individually notable, the ceremony should be (and is) mentioned in the Oxford Street article. But the list isn't notable. Dingo1729 (talk) 05:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Here is a reference to the turning on of the lights in a book about the Spice Girls which you may find illuminating: [1]Rangoon11 (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't really see any problem with this list. Yes, it's trivial and kind of a waste of time. However some people might be interested in the information. The light ceremony has a section in Oxford Street and some readers will have an interest in the list -- which is too large to merge there. It is also well-sourced and a matter of public record so no harm is done to individuals. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"However some people might be interested in the information" WP:INTERESTING is not a valid reason.LibStar (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The list contains an entry which is either cryptic, mispunctuated, or just plain wrong: "2006 — All Saints (Peter André & Katie Price aka Jordan, G4, Andy Abraham)". The use of parentheses in this context implies that Andre, Price/Jordan, G4, and Abraham are all members of All Saints, when in fact none of them are. This is cited to [2] which mentions only the involvement of All Saints. This needs to be fixed as soon as possible. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now corrected.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I personally think we have better things to do, but evidently the BBC, the Telegraph, the Daily Mail and whoever else dedicates entire articles to this think otherwise, and it's substantial coverage in reliable sources that count. If anyone ever creates an article about Oxford Street Christmas lights, it would make sense to merge this information into that. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a list of indiscriminate information. I agree with Dingo1729.Edison (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment I am really strugggling to see how it is indiscriminate information, it seems to me to be exceptionally specific and tightly defined.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Interesting but hardly worthy of an Encyclopedia entry. 41.133.47.252 (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion This might work better if the article were renamed simply Oxford Street Christmas Lights and the slight content from Oxford Street added to it. Then other things could be included, such as the death in 1959 from some of the lighting falling down. I'm reluctant to make the changes having seen the fiasco when Colonel Warden boldly changed the title, focus and content of an article in the middle of an AfD discussion. I still think the list is rather trivial and it might be removed during ordinary editing if there is enough other interesting content added. I'm still voting delete for the article as it stands. Dingo1729 (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That would work for me. However if the article is deleted the content will be lost and a name change will become rather a moot point. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone could just copy this article, save it, and use it to start the new one if this one gets deleted. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will go ahead and start the new article, expecting this one will be deleted. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out Oxford Street Christmas lights. The information interested people would want on the topic is now there without the need for a seperate list, or overloading Oxford Street. I don't think anyone would question that the lights, and the celebrity lighting ceremonies, are notable. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with your proposed approach. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, unfortunately this could get complicated if, for example, this AfD gets closed as keep. Also, though not too important, it loses the edit history. I think we need admin help here, and my proposed course of action would be:

1. Delete Oxford Street Christmas lights as a clear WP:CFORK
2. Early close this AfD as Moot or No Consensus defaulting to Keep
3. Rename this article as Oxford Street Christmas Lights
4. Add some more content
5. Nominate the newly named article at AfD
6. Notify the people who have posted here what we have done

5 and 6 might look as though I'm being pedantic, but I really think they need to be done to show that this isn't just an underhand tactic to try to defeat an article deletion. I'll try to find an admin to get an opinion on all this. Dingo1729 (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have caused a problem. I guess I didn't understand all the issues involved. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete under NOT as indiscriminate list with no established notability. In terms of moving the article; do not cut and past content from this article as that violates the licensing policy here (called a cut/paste move). There may be notable coverage for a full article - but I encourage you to work on the Oxford Street article, get the content in and then split it out if it does prove too much. I did some poking around and I don't think there is likely to be enough for a full new article. I fixed the cut/paste moves with some redirects for the time being --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable list. Yworo (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So numerous entire articles on the subject in major news outlets like the BBC, Telegraph and Daily Mail are not sufficient to establish notability? Why not? I am not seeing many convincing arguments here for deletion, just opinions. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's somewhat misdirection; because those articles deal with each individual celebrity turning on the lights. There is a significant difference between that and establishing the notability of the topic of who turned on Oxford Street Christmas lights. I see no sources that deal with that issue --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand your point. The articles are on the subject of who turned on the lights in a particular year, if the turning on of the lights was not a notable event in and of itself then the BBC would not report it year after year. Period. I would hope that the BBC is generally understood to be a serious news outlet, and not one driven by 'celebrity' reporting. Even if one was unfamilar with the BBC a quick look at their news web site should reveal that. I note also that a year-by-year list is given in The London Companion, a reputable and well known book (at least in the UK). I see no convincing arguments as to why these completely third party and highly reputable sources do not establish notability for the subject of this artice, leaving aside all the other citations in the article. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Legitimate WP:SPINOUT list of a clearly notable topic. While the subject may be completely unimportant, we have no requirements that any article topic be important, meaningful, or significant as long as it is notable and verifiable. All of the entries are sourced, and I fail to see any cause for deletion. Multiple articles in reliable sources with significant coverage of the topic (people who have turned on the Oxford Street Christmas lights) demonstrate that this meets our notability guidelines. The delete arguments put forth above do not seem to be much more than WP:IDON'TLIKEIT or some attemot to introduce a judgement of importance into the notability guidelines. Either way, such arguments are not based in policy. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 23:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am no fan of lists, but in this case notability is clearly established by the sources. Dlabtot (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete utterly fails any definition of 'notable'. Worth saving as a section in the main article perhaps, but equally perhaps not. - ۩ Mask 02:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This list is not important or encyclopedic. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Oxford Street or Delete. No sources saying that this list is notable/encyclopedic. Not an encyclopedic topic. Only notable inside the context of Oxford street Christmas lights. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is no requirement that the list be notable, only the topic of the list. This recent RFC saw that idea resoundingly opposed here. The sources provided specifically discuss the people turning on the lights. Whether or not any of us find the concept important is irrelevant because those sources meet the only definition of notable that we apply - this one. The one that specifically says "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity" and allows that those may enhance notablility, but cannot define it. The list is discrminate, specific, well sourced, and meets all the requirements at WP:SALAT and WP:IINFO. Many of the Delete comments seem to run contrary to consensus from that RfC and the Notability Guideline itself. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 14:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • However. For this list we have to establish the notability not of the Oxford street lights but of "people who have turned on the Oxford Street Christmas lights" (necessary distinction). The idea of list articles is to draw together encyclopaedic information, to form links and connections etc. In this case the list is much more suited to being in the article itself. This is one of the fringe cases, for sure, but people who have turned on the Oxford Street Christmas lights is simply not a demonstrably notable topic. To reiterate; the lenght of this list and the shortness/insignificance of the topic means I believe it should be dealt with in entirety at Oxford Street --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am OK with a merge into Oxford Street#Christmas lights if that will not overwhelm that article. If it is appropriate for inclusion as a merge, but the amount of information in the list is too much for inclusion there, WP:SPINOUT tells us to make it its own stand alone list - and we end up right back here. Lists of alumni, or of people from cities/towns, often end up following this process. I just don't want to see the material merged and then later deleted in a content debate on the page where it is not broadly watched and debated according to this process. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 14:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well if this closes delete I was going to do a 2 or 3 column list which should keep it short enough --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Shocking this is even being defended (no criticism intended to the people themselves who support keeping). Indiscriminate indeed. If this passes as keep, I think we need List of top ranked golfers who have never made a hole in one in the PGA, List of dog breeds that have not won Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show overall, and List of glass glowers whose art has appeared in the Smithsonian. This event is soooo notable we have exactly five sentences about it here. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the Oxford Street Christmas Lights do get a fair amount of coverage, but when I started to look around, I realised that other Christmas lights in London get a lot of celebrity turnout and media coverage as well, and are annual events that seem to be quite a notable part of 20th and 21st century cultural life in London. It's not a reliable source (though I would bet that everything on there can be verified in reliable sources), but have a look at this website for an idea of the sort of "Christmas Lights" events that have been held over the past decade in London. In particular, look at the links at the bottom that give the history for each year. Also, scroll to the bottom here and you see a list of those that have turned on the lights in Regent Street. Finally, if you look at this page, you will see the details of the celebrities that attended the switching on of the Oxford Street lights in 2006, and Andre, Price/Jordan, G4, and Abraham were the supporting cast to All Saints, if you like, explaining why they were mentioned in the Wikipedia list at one point (this error was pointed out above by User:Metropolitan90). On whether the list should be kept, I think the information is easily worked into either the Oxford Street article (technically a restoration as the material came from there in the first place - the Oxford Street article could also be much expanded, which would solve the problem of this list overwhelming the article), or used as the seed of an article on public street lighting at Christmas in general and the associated public events/celebrations associated with them being turned on, though good luck in thinking up a title for that. Maybe Christmas street lights? But that doesn't really cover things like the Christmas Tree in Trafalgar Square. Maybe commercial and celebrity culture in the urban landscape at Yuletide? :-) Anyway, the article title or merge destination doesn't really matter, as long as this verifiable material is kept somewhere. Decades of celebrities turning on these lights clearly warrants some content somewhere, even if people can't agree on the exact form it should take. Carcharoth (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC) I left advice for Rangoon11 here on how to correctly attribute when splitting out new articles. I've also fixed the attribution issues by making this edit and this edit, though the new article was started a few minutes before the content was removed from source article. 00:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - I think that your idea for a general 'Commercial and celebrity culture at Christmas' article is intriguing, and would make an interesting article. I still think that the topic of the Oxford Street Christmas lights is more than large enough to justify its own article though. I will confess that on reflection I gave the article which I created the wrong title and subject, it should have been simply 'Oxford Street Christmas lights'. If I had taken that route then I think that this AfD could have been avoided, or at least could have been made a lot more straightforward.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Oxford Street or expand to an Oxford Street Christmas lights article, if that's notable enough. It doesn't seem notable enough to stand alone. --DanielCD (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly notable event and the list meets all requirements of WP:LIST and WP:SAL. Those that argue Indiscriminate apparently don't understand what that really means. Nothing indiscriminate about the inclusion criteria for this list. --Mike Cline (talk) 02:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I think it would improve the project if we didn't even have lists, only categories, but we do have lists, and this list fulfills the misguided policies we have in place, so I said 'keep'. Dlabtot (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The annual switching-on of the lights is a notable event, as evidenced by plenty of RS, and everybody listed has a WP article (which implies that they are notable). Satisfies WP:LISTPEOPLE. Jimmy Pitt talk 19:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment But do you honestly believe that the biographies of any of these people would mention their turning on the Oxford Street Lights? Oxford Street is Notable, Christmas Lights are Notable, most of the people are Notable. But that does not necessarily mean that someone turning on Oxford Street Christmas Lights is Notable. As an analogy, Prince Charles is Notable and Toothpaste is Notable, but Wikipedia would not consider it Notable what brand he uses. 41.133.47.252 (talk) 11:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above, the fact that many notable people make the list does not make the topic "List of people who have turned on the Oxford Street Christmas lights " notable. none of these people would put on their CVs that they turned on Oxford Street Christmas lights. it simply is not an encyclopaedic topic that people would go searching for in WP. LibStar (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • These people tend to be celebrities, so the concept of a CV doesn't apply as such (though I think I know what you mean - there is an equivalent term, but I can't think of it right now). It depends how famous the celebrities are and how desperate they get (if they fall out of favour in the merry-go-round of public adulation) on whether they mention that they did this. If an agent is looking at ways to increase some random B-list celebrity's exposure, this wouldn't be a bad way. But if someone is already very famous and doing well, they (or their agents) might well see this as below them. Has no-one looked at the pages I linked above? Carcharoth (talk) 08:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC) i.e. people are missing the point here that the topic is not really Oxford Street, it is not really Xmas lights, but the topic is 20th/21st century celebrity culture. Tons has been written about that, and there is plenty of scope for an article about that, but this list is not it. Just please don't dismiss all celebrity-related stuff as non-notable.[reply]
• Comment The references in the article, specifically 1-6, 9-12, and 15-17 are reliable sources that even have titles that are exactly about persons who have turned on the lights. The subject is clearly notable and has resoundingly passes the WP:GNG and WP:V. There is not a single argument in this discusssion that refers to notability that has presented any evidence to the contrary. The notability guidelines are designed to assure the viability of an article, and are not written to judge the worthiness of an article. The article is viable, and the sources directly support the topic. Nobody has put forth a single policy based reason for deletion, and many of the arguments actually are in direct opposition to the GNG which says "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity." Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 12:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh that line means that "he/she is famous" is not an argument for notability :) None of the sources critically address the topic of "people who switched on the Oxford Street christmas lights". As a topic there is no critical commentary on the topic (which is the main idea of GNG). That the Oxford street lights are notable, and that the celebrities are all individually notable does not relate to the notability of this topic. Notability is not inherited. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Are you saying that you would prefer a separate article for each year that the lights are switched on? To suggest that an article dealing with the switching on of the lights in a particular year does not help to establish notability for an article concerning the switching of the lights every year seems to be very curious logic. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Umm, no. Not at all! That would definitely not be notable. I think you are misunderstanding the problem though; the articles you mention are useless for the notability of this as a topic; we want significant critical commentary on the topic of people who switched on these lights. So as an example a retrospective article looking at people who had turned the lights on and critically asserting this was notable in some way would suffice. As yourself the question; why is a list of these people notable? --Errant ^(chat!) 12:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that "famous" is not an argument for inclusion without sources, but the rule must be read both ways. If "It's important" cannot be used to support an unsourced article, "It's unimportant" cannot be used as an argument for exclusion of a sourced article. And your suggestion above asks the wrong question. We only ask "Is a list of these people notable?" We don't ask why under our policies. The why is irrelevant. Sources decide if a topic is "worthy of notice" and we decide if there is enough written in those sources to support the article. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 13:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The authors of The London Companion seem to think it is: [3]. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict)The point I was making was no one is using "It's unimportant" as an argument. The main deletion argument is a failing of GNG through a lack of significant critical commentary of the topic of the article. And, yes, we do ask why. This is us asking why; or to put it another way "what exists that satisfy GNG and specific notability criteria". The criteria for lists is specific; requiring notability to be established for the specific topic of "people who have turned on the Oxford Street Christmas lights" @Rangoon11; I believe that asserts my point. No critical commentary, no indication of significance. Just a bare list of people. The problem is whether this is distinctly notable on top of Oxford Street lights --Errant ^(chat!) 13:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia does not currently have an article on the Oxford Street Christmas Lights, so it isn't 'on top of' it at present. The switch on is an event of importance: [4]. The only question is what form of article it is covered in. As I have said earlier in this debate, I now feel that an article on the lights generally, with the list included, would be the best solution. However the easiest way of getting to that point seems to be to keep this article, on the proviso that its title is then changed to 'Oxford Street Christmas Lights' and the content expanded.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rangoon11. The two obvious courses of action are:

A) Delete this article and then create Oxford Street Christmas Lights with this as part of the content.

B) Keep this article and rename it Oxford Street Christmas Lights and extend the content.

The result is the same either way and I am indifferent to which is done. I think it was a mistake to relist this AfD vainly hoping for consensus rather than going ahead with either A) or B).Dingo1729 (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The RS coverage militates in favor of a keep.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the Oxford Street Christmas Lights section in the Oxford Street article.

I am not the least bit impressed by a nomination of AfD that was made just 4 minutes after the article was created! Obviously, and very predictably, the article has undergone some considerable improvement since the first 4 minutes of its existence. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 10:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. It was a simply list when created, and it's still a simple list now. The only 'improvement' is that each entry has been referenced, and I don't see anyone in here claiming it was a hoax. MickMacNee (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The excellent source provided by Rangoon11 demonstrates the notability of the topic beyond any doubt. I have added a citation to the London Gazetteer. Our editing policy is to retain the article for further improvement. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Why are Oxford Street's lights more notable than any other? More coverage. Yes, the BBC will cover it, being somewhat London based and oriented themselves and still suffering from the old 'if you are outside London, dial 01' mentality. Can we see lists of who switched on the lights in Ross on Wye too? If not deleted, I would go for a Merge to Oxford Street as there is a list of the people who switched on Blackpool Lights in the article on Blackpool Illuminations. (A more interesting list in places, including Johannes Rau (Prime Minister of North Rhine-Westphalia) and on another occasion a famous racehorse...) Peridon (talk) 12:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are Oxford Street's lights more notable than others? Perhaps because Oxford Street is the largest shopping street in Europe, and runs for a mile and a half through the very centre of London, one of the two or three most important cities in the world. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (reply to Peridon): That's what notability means here - more coverage. In my experience, the lights in Carnaby Street and South Molton Street are better but the Oxford Street ceremony seems to get more coverage and so it's fine as a topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Why are Oxford Street's lights more notable than any other?" Isn't that a bit like asking, why is Buckingham Palace more notable than any other house? Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 14:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Must make a note to give up irony for the New Year... Peridon (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. While Oxford Street is obviously uber-important, anyone who thinks you could not construct a similar list for every town and city in the UK using RS for each individual entry, is dreaming. I could make at least 5 different such lists for my metro area, and it's not even in the top 3 in importance in the country, if that. On that score, this article in its current form is pure and simply 'it can be done' listcruft frankly. So, we are left with the assertion that reproducing the list as a whole has been considered a noteworthy topic in RS - and the single reference presented to that effect so far, the London Companion, is nothing more than a coffee table trivia book (read the introduction). However, seeing as it can be sourced, I see no reason why the list cannot be merged to the main Oxford Street article, it is hardly a big list if using col-2 or even 3, so it's a merge from me, and by that, I mean actually do it, too. MickMacNee (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically, there is not much to merge (apart from a few added references) as the material was already in the Oxford Street article. See my post earlier in this AfD. The material came from here. Is there a difference between merging and simply restoring the previous list in the Oxford Street article and referencing it using the references from the edit history of this article? The difference between the lights in smaller metropolitan areas and these ones is that most of the people turning the lights on will have articles, and people like blue-linked lists more than red-linked (or plain text) lists. Also, some people have made lists of various light-switching on ceremonies and festivals (again, as I mentioned earlier), see this website and look at the history recorded there. But I agree, nearly all this (including the history of the Regent Street lights) is better presented in the articles on the locations themselves. But certainly the Blackpool Illuminations article shows that it is possible to have a stand-alone article if approached in the right way. Carcharoth (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure I follow your point, but if it's that I should be voting delete, I've no great issue with that. As for other towns being less able to listify with bluelinks, I doubt it. I picked Norwich at random, as a pretty small place in national terms, and apparently Linda Barker and Bryan Gunn are switching theirs on this year. [5] I shudder to think how far down the chain you would have to go to find a place where you couldn't make such a list with bluelinks - the whole point of them turning up is that they are likely to be notable to someone, surely? Although there have been mutterings in the media this year that the expense of booking these appearances is not justifiable in light of the economic crisis. MickMacNee (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2010 (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.