Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time[edit]

Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time

The article is a magnet for POV, OR and vandalism, and mostly consist of a top 10 list and a hunk of unsourced trivia and analysis. As well, there are no sources that prove their significance. An article published by a magazine isn't notable simply because it caused some debate. There was a similar article for the 100 Greatest Guitarists that was deleted roughly a year ago. The AFD can be found for that here. At the very least, the page should be merged into the Rolling Stone article. Scorpion0422 17:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time. Vandalism issues are a reason to place the article on your watchlist and patrol it, but they are not a valid reason to delete. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason I seperated the noms is because there was a little-known book written about the albums list, whereas in this case there wasn't. It is almost the exact same boat as the Guitarists list was, and that was almost unanimously deleted. -- Scorpion0422 17:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reluctantly, because my personal feeling is disapproval for rankings like this. Be that as it may, articles like this one show notability, and articles like this and this show that the list has some acceptance as a reference. Other concerns aren't deletion qualifiers. CitiCat ♫ 17:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Same reasons the albums article should not be deleted. It's a topic still discussed 4 years after it was written. Very notable. --Endless Dan 20:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Very very notable. [1] --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maybe even WP:SNOW keep. Easily verifiable and notable list by verifiable and notable publication. There is nothing wrong with the list. If its a vandal magnet, try WP:RFPP, but this isn't a deletion issue.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP, FUCKING KEEP Are you guys nuts? -- Metamutator —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metamutator (talk • contribs) 08:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Saying it will attract vandals is a non-arguement. You better start nominating all WP articles in that case. Lugnuts 15:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Probably warrants a brief mention in the parent article, but an article about a POV list is unencyclopedic. It contains little sourced commentary to establish notability. The JPStalk to me 20:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to nominator isn't everything in the article verifiable in the Rolling Stone link? I may be missing something. CitiCat ♫ 09:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doesn't everything need at least two links from independant sources to prove their notability? -- Scorpion0422 17:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you bother with the minimal Google search or even bother to look at the link I providedabove? Your still arguing non-notable without even the basic due diligence of a Google search. Thats a bad faith, knee jerk nomination. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Response to comment before previous) I thought you were discussing whether it could be verified. Notability sources I put in my comment above. CitiCat ♫ 19:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — the nominator claims POV, OR and vandalism, but such is not the case here. Editors are not contributing a discriminate hodgepodge of what they think are the greatest songs of all time, it is a list that — while some may agree or disagree with it — was published by Rolling Stone a well-known magazine. Any POV, OR or related issues on Rolling Stone's part should probably be debated in a different forum, and vandalism should be handled just like any other vandalism. At wikipedia, it provides a valuable reference point for editors when writing articles about the individual songs; yes, the magazine would still need to be included as a reference, but this again is the starting point. At the very least, if this list is deleted, then the main article should provide a link to the main article; however, readers would lose the direct links. [[Briguy52748 21:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)]] (P.S. — I never saw the "100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time" article, but from the comments at that afd debate, I would guess that was an indiscriminate list of someone's opinion without relying on an official list. This is not the case here; Rolling Stone, as stated before, is a well-known magazine. A person can accept or reject the list, as is the case with any "all-time best" list as they see fit).[reply]
    • The 100 Greatest Guitarists list was also from Rolling Stone. -- Scorpion0422 22:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I simply don't see why this article is POV, I mean the article is about an actual article, not on what someone thinks. Since this doesn't need it, there should be limited editing with this article, because it really is a vandalism magnet, but it's got to stay.--Mariogc 23:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is of clear note from a major music magazine like Rolling Stone. I would however actually like to see it develop and actually see the Top 500. Now that would be more useful ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 21:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a rather noteworthy article and I see no reason to delete it. Catbox 9 23:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild delete - I somewhat disagree with the notion that this is "a POV article" -- the whole point of Wikipedia's POV policy is to make sure that the Wikipedia articles themselves are written from a neutral perspective -- the subject of the article does not have to have a neutral perspective (i.e. most movies, songs, books, documentaries, religions, etc., have a definite POV, yet it's possible [and acceptable, and expected] to have a non-POV article about them). However, I agree with the sentiment that this article lacks notability -- in other words, there really is nothing to write about (..."Rolling Stone published this article about their opinion of the top 500 songs of all time. Yay."). It seems almost fancrufty -- what Rolling Stone says in their magazine is for their readers to post/discuss in appropriate places (of which Wikipedia is not one). Rolling Stone is not the accepted authority for music rankings -- the Billboard charts are (largely due to the fact that Billboard's methods are quantitative/objective, whilst Rolling Stone's are qualitative/subjective). Again, there really is nothing to write about (..."Rolling Stone published this article about their opinion of the top 500 songs of all time. Yay.") Piercetheorganist 01:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see this Wikipedia article as instigating discussion posts derived from the Rolling Stone magazine article; Wikipedia has policies in place that prohibit general discussion about the topics (i.e., the remark "I thought "Song X" by Band Y sucked and didn't belong on the list" is not allowed on the talk page and should be removed on sight). Yes, I agree that articles such as these can attract vandalism or fanboy point-of-view posts, but that's what policing this article (and similar articles) are for. For me, this article seems to meet the standards of POV, verifiability and (yes) notability. While Piercetheorganist makes a point that the opinions of Rolling Stone are indeed qualitative/subjective (compared to the quantitative/subjective methods of Billboard magazine), the fact is that the article itself generated discussion in the mainstream and was a bold undertaking by Rolling Stone. [[Briguy52748 12:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Comment These are opinions too: Dow Jones Industrial Average and Billboard Top 100, and they are just as defining and notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An additional point - We have articles that list Grammy Award winners (many different articles, in fact), and these are voted on by a committee based on opinion of what singer, song, album, etc. is most deserving. All this article does is reference a magazine article that awards songs another distinction - the best songs of all time. [[Briguy52748 23:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Speedy keep “magnet for POV, OR and vandalism”??? Articles don’t get deleted because they are vandalized a lot! This is an article of critical importance! --S.dedalus 21:47, 15 October 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rolling_Stone%27s_500_Greatest_Songs_of_All_Time&oldid=1138314681"