Talk:List of music considered the worst/Archive 3

Pewdiepie has said it’s everyday bro was the worse and there are multiple articles saying it’s the worse
I think if Friday by Rebecca black, Chineese food and Baby are on the list then It’s everyday bro, Pokemon Go song and Gucci Gang should definetly be included multiple sources have criticized it for being the worse — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19B:100:7880:6036:11BE:CCF6:1D97 (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Pewdiepie is not a professional music critic or a reliable source on Wikipedia when it comes to music. For an example of some potential acceptable sources, see WP:RSMUSIC. You need to give actual examples of reliable sources declaring these songs "the worst". Sergecross73   msg me  19:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2018
The infamous "Heyayayayayaya" lyrics in the song...

Could someone please remove this uncited, opinionated, irrelevant nonsense? Thanks. 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:A414:61EA:F383:BCE9 (talk) 08:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I found a few credible wikipedia sources for it’s everyday bro
Idolator has made an article called “The worst song of 2017 gets a Gucci Mane Remix” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19B:100:7880:D0F2:4D4B:1EBA:E53F (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * See my prior responses on what you need to do now... Sergecross73   msg me  02:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Soc 314: Wikipedia Critique an Article Assignment
1. This article seems to be very biased. It talks about the worst music then provides a list of albums and songs. Looking at the list there are some songs that I enjoy listening to, so not everyone has the same opinion and therefore everyone would not agree with this.

2. Does not prove accuracy because it is based off many viewers and critics, but not everyone has the same opinion. It even says, “some publications have compiled a list” but not all.

Haleynelson (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT, but that being said, while the list is no doubt incomplete, most of the statements do provide attribution for the content that is present. It's not claiming that you or anyone else likes or dislikes it - your personal tastes are irrelevant - but rather, it usually says things like "According to music journalist/polls from publication/website/newspaper". Sergecross73   msg me  12:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * There are in my opinion various problems with this article:
 * very narrow focus - only on rock/pop and related
 * very "zeitgeist" dependent
 * often questionable sources
 * There are numerous pieces of music in every genre that at some point were considered "the worst" or "among the worst" by someone. I'm not sure what the use of this article is here. Basically it shows that there was someone who considered a certain composition "the worst" at some point. But (other than for example with the "worst films" list) there seems to be no consensus principle here.2003:D4:DBC7:DB38:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Its true, the article has many shortcomings. Proposals to delete it have failed, and most proposals made on the talk page are rejected on the grounds of making the issues even worse. I'm mostly here to reject the bad proposals or advise on good ones. Sergecross73   msg me  22:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Is it just me, or has the article gotten worse over the years? "List of songs that have been considered among the worst ever", then "List of songs in English labeled the worst ever" to "List of music considered the worst". The first title was in my opinion the one that was the fairest, given the nature of the article.


 * The whole article has a certain smell of "I don't like artist/song; let's find a source that agrees with me". Hence many sources are highly questionable (since when does banter of sports journalists qualify as a source? Since when is a single mention in a gossip column a source?). A number of entries on the talk page seem to show exactly that thinking. The criteria for inclusion on this list need to be much more strict.2003:D4:DBC7:DB48:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I've only monitored it for the last few years, where its largely not changed at all, due to the same sorts of bogus types suggestions. ("Hey this random Youtuber had their fifteen minutes of fame playing a kazoo and it got 2 million downvotes, add it!" or "Everything Nickelback does is terrible just add every song" sorts of nonsense. It could use some cleanup, just no one ever bothers to do it. Sergecross73   msg me  12:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Brokencyde
Currently reads "This album tops Rate Your Music's list Bottom Albums of All-time, which features Brokencyde six times in the top 40."

Unsurprisingly it no longer tops that list. The current top position (Blood on the Dancefloor) is is listed seven times in the top 40 of that list

Not sure how to handle this. Delete the entry or exchange for current top entry?2003:D4:DBC7:DB38:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed the entry. Generally, entries like this should only be on there if reliable sources take note of the accomplishments. Rate Your Music is not a reliable source in itself (See WP:NOTRSMUSIC.) But it'd be notable if, let's say, Rolling Stone wrote an article about how an artist was featured on RYM however many times. So unless there's a third party source taking note of it, we shouldn't be taking note of these things as editors. Sergecross73   msg me  12:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

"What's Up?", 4 Non Blondes
This part should probably be deleted: Gawker journalist Brian Moylan included the track in an unranked list of the "10 Party Songs We Never Ever Want to Hear Again".[97] Reason: According to the source he basically hates it when drunk people sing it. That's not enough for me.2003:D4:DF39:2C54:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Agreed. Being on an unranked list, where the criteria is simply "not wanting to hear it", narrowed down to a certain type of song (party songs), is pretty weak commentary for a list that is documenting "the worst". It technically wasn't even "the worst" of that short list itself. Sergecross73   msg me  12:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Lulu, Lou Reed and Metallica
First source doesn't really warrant inclusion in a "worst" list (which is actually also clear from the quote). In the source itself it reads "the Internet had all the evidence it needed to preemptively crown Lulu the Worst Album of All Time." with a link to a discussion at (defunct) wordmagazine.co.uk. This to me sounds more like criticism against people who'd call a record "the worst" before it's even released... Remaining sources warrant inclusion even less (obviously).2003:D4:DF39:2C54:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * - The second half, about Bowie and the Atlantic liking it, falls outside of the scope of the article. It still warrants inclusion though. The source in question is Pitchfork (a reliable/usable source per WP:RSMUSIC), not WordMagazine. Pitchfork's commentary makes it clear that they're documenting it being called the worst, even if it was off of preview material. Also, given how it was reviewed, there may be more sourcing out there as well. Sergecross73   msg me  13:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Like this - NME calling it one of the worst reviewed albums ever. Sergecross73   msg me  13:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * But without giving much of a source for this either: In the article itself they give two examples for bad reviews (one of them being the Pitchfork review) and one for a good review. I don't think it's a good idea to use a headline as source since those are often not written by the article's author (and are quite often clickbait material).2003:D4:DF39:2C54:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Pitchfork and NME are the sources though. They don't need to give their sources. We don't need to track it that far back. They're the ones considering it the worst. Their commentary is enough to be a valid inclusion. (And there's nothing wrong with using headlines either.) Sergecross73   msg me  13:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, neither Pitchfork nor NME consider it the worst. They are NOT the sources for this. Perhaps I'm really not getting this; maybe you could direct me to explanation when a source becomes reliable. Because here I'm seeing a bit "reliability by proxy": Source A ("wisdom of the internet") is not considered reliable; source B (reliable source) quotes source A but in a disapproving manner ("source A is not reliable"); and suddenly the source A information is becoming reliable enough to be included here?2003:D4:DF39:2C54:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * NME also noted that the album was "One of the worst reviewed albums ever" and "one of the most critically panned albums of recent years". Source. NME made the comment that it's considered one of the worst reviewed albums ever. NME is a reliable source per WP:RSMUSIC. That's all we need here. We don't need to "check what their sources" or "confirm their source is reliable". The fact that they said it is enough. Sergecross73   msg me  17:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Really? Because the facts simply don't back this up. Even reliable sources occasionally get things wrong. NME itself gave it 7/10; hence they must talk about other reviewers here. On the wiki page for "Lulu" the clearly negative reviews are few; a Metacritic score of 45/100 is very far from the worst.2003:D4:DF39:2C54:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * They may be alluding to user reviews, non-professional reviews, and reviews not covered by MC as well. Or just general reception to it. As the Pitchfork source alludes to, the general opinion on the album was very low. Sergecross73   msg me  18:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank You, Duran Duran
A cover album, named the worst ever album by Q magazine in March 2006.[27][28] Both sources are secondary (they're supposed to be copies of the Q mag list but they differ slightly). The first source admits to having altered the list (although for a different entry). So those two sources are in my opinion untrustworthy and shouldn't be used.2003:D4:DF39:2C54:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ It clearly happened - other reliable sources reported on it. The Independent and the BBC. We can swap sources though, sure. Sergecross73   msg me  18:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's at least an improvement. 2003:D4:DF39:2C54:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Sources replaced. Sergecross73   msg me  19:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Achy Breaky Heart
"Achy Breaky Heart" regularly appears at the top of "worst songs ever" lists.[87] Source is questionable.2003:D4:DF39:2C54:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * - You're correct that "Daily Mail" an unreliable source (It's on WP:NOTRSMUSIC.) But judging by how many examples are given in the later sentences, there's probably enough sources to justify leaving the sentence up there by itself. (Or it'd probably be pretty easy to find a replacement source.) Sergecross73   msg me  19:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Update: Removed source, reworded to "multiple" instead of "regularly" which would likely be difficult to define/source. The sources present can verify "multiple". Sergecross73   msg me  19:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's better. 2003:D4:DF39:2C54:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

"Agadoo", Black Lace
''Many newspaper and Internet music critics agree that this song is one of the worst ever. '' No source given. When it was re-released in 2009, many newspapers printed the headline "worst song ever".[70] Source doesn't back this up. It was ranked the worst song in pop history in a Guardian newspaper article in 2009. If that's the Guardian article used as the next source (after the following sentence): No, the Guardian did not rate it but was referring to the Q Magazine poll later mentioned. 2003:D4:DF39:2C54:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Removed unsourced generalities, put more focus on the fact that it was voted worst song in that Q magazine feature, which should be the main focus (of the content currently provided) of why its on this list. Sergecross73   msg me  15:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Two the Hard Way, Allman and Woman (1977)
Cher, who acquired the rights to the album, has refused to allow it to be rereleased in any form.[12] Source doesn't back this up; also it was released on CD in 2014. 2003:D4:DF39:2C65:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 09:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC) Reviews of the album were resoundingly negative, No source given. with a review in the Rolling Stone Record Guide labeling the album "worthless", "bottom of the barrel" and the most "inappropriate combination (imaginable)". Not properly sourced, I'd say. 2003:D4:DF01:DB48:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Removed wholesale. The only aspect that was actually sourced was the fact that, as of 2008, had not been re-released, and even that didn't ascertain that it was to quality, but rather, just that Cher had the rights to the masters and simply hadn't done it yet. None of the rest of that was sourced, and even if it was, it didn't actually make any actual "worst music" of any capacity, which was one of the inclusion criteria. I have no objection to it being re-added if someone can provide sources (which sounds possible, as it wasn't very well received) but for now, no argument can be sourced. Sergecross73   msg me  18:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Having Fun with Elvis on Stage, Elvis Presley (1974)
I wonder if this one actually falls under the scope of this article because it isn't exactly a music album (which is even mentioned in the entry). 2003:D4:DF39:2C65:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 09:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ See description one section above. The source called it the worst rock and roll record of all time. Your concerns in interpretation is kind of verring into original research territory. Sergecross73   msg me  18:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm asking because https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Having_Fun_with_Elvis_on_Stage files it under "Spoken word". Seems inconsistent at least. 2003:D4:DF01:DB48:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

"Could It Be Magic", Take That (1992)
This cover of the 1975 Barry Manilow track was voted the worst song in history in a 2004 public poll organised by Diesel.[89] NME reviews editor Anthony Thornton called it "the worst song in the world".[89] According to the source it wasn't a poll but a "bring the worst disc from your collection and swap it for a new one". To me this is inherently flawed. The number of participants was quite small for my taste ("More than 1,000 records"). Also, the comment of the RME editor sounds at least partly as if he's mocking the whole premise. 2003:D4:DF39:2C65:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the NME comment was taken out of context. He says that, but he says that as a description of the poll results, not as a judgement being made himself. Disagree on the first part though. The source provided shows that Diesel, The Telegraph, and the NME news editor all identify this as a poll that identified it as the worst song. Your criticism revolve entirely around your own interpretation and standards, which are trumped by the commentary provided by the sources themselves. Sergecross73   msg me  18:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Err, no. This is not my standards but logic. People didn't necessarily bring the records they considered the worst - they most likely brought the ones they could most easily part with. This is a different thing; many people will have (for different reasons) more than one copy of a certain record. If they part with one of the copies (because they're offered another record in return) this does not make the record the "worst" in their collection.
 * The Telegraph does not identify it as a poll. Source reads: The list of the top 10 worst records has been compiled by Diesel, the high street fashion store, which invited its customers to choose and bring in the worst discs from their collections. More than 1,000 records were surrendered in exchange for a CD of modern, more fashionable tracks. 2003:D4:DF01:DB48:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want to change the wording of describing what happened, that's fine, feel free to propose an alternate wording. But the point was that all three parties, in different wordings, interpreted what was done as being an indicator of it being the worst ever. Sergecross73   msg me  18:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

"Hot Problems", Double Take (2012)
Uploaded to YouTube by Drew Garrett and Lauren Willey who make up the group known as Double Take, the song and accompanying music video received highly negative reviews.[150][151] Second source doesn't strike me neither as negative review nor as a descriptions of negative reviews. Remove? Many have called it "the worst song ever",[152] with some YouTubers proclaiming it to be worse than Rebecca Black's "Friday". "some YouTubers"? Really? 2003:D4:DF01:DB48:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Reworked entirely. Taking all the generalities and unsourced bits out, it seems like the sources were largely alluding to the same thing - the ABC News worst song commentary. Sergecross73   msg me  19:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2018
Under "True" by Spandau Ballet, please place a period after "Luke Williams". 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:50C2:A3FD:57B1:3AEB (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sergecross73   msg me  19:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

"Life", Des'ree (1998)
has been voted as having the worst lyrics ever in polls by the BBC,[104] The Independent,[105] and the Herald Sun.[106] The Independent source explicitely says: ''It raises so many deep questions about what constitutes awfulness that I haven’t really been able to compile a Top 10 or anything. So these are not in order.'' So it's among the worst but wasn't the worst in the The Independent source (which also wasn't actually a poll). The Herald Sun source is no longer available and seems not to have been archived. 2003:D4:DF01:DB48:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the part about the Independent should probably be reworded. We'll have to search and see if we can retrieve the Herald Sun source or not. I did a brief search, but mostly just found various websites referring to the BBC poll, which seems to be pretty widely reported on. So its a valid entry, just needs some tweaking. Sergecross73   msg me  19:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

MacArthur Park
Currently: The Jimmy Webb-penned "MacArthur Park" is popularly held as the worst song ever written.[52]

Source given is https://www.theguardian.com/music/2007/aug/23/2

There, the very first line reads: "Contrary to popular misconception, MacArthur Park is not the worst song ever written." 2003:D4:DBC8:2004:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The Guardian indicates that viewing "MacArthur Park" as the worst song ever written is the "popular" position, and so the opening line of the song's entry is fully supported. Feel free to note that the paper disagrees, I guess. 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:A414:61EA:F383:BCE9 (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * But the Guardian article does not back up this claim at all (except referencing Dave Barry); and it's also written pretty much tongue-in-cheek. I don't see how this supports the opening line of the entry.

2003:D4:DBC8:2046:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 10:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If it was purely the Guardian source, I'd agree with removal. But the Guarduan source appears to just be set up to introduce the popular conception. After that, there's a reliable source that had a poll that resulted in it being considered the worst, followed by the source more or less agreeing with the results. Collectively, it meets the requirements. Sergecross73   msg me  02:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * However the "reliable source" is a humorist doing a poll among his readers which for me is pretty much stretching the definition of "reliable source" (other entries suffer from similar problems, btw). 2003:D4:DBC7:DB38:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The poll was done by the Miami Herald and a journalist with a Pulitzer, if the wiki-links and articles are correct... Sergecross73   msg me  21:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * It's a local newspaper and the Pulitzer was not for investigative journalism; it was for commentary. "Popular conception" here boils down to the readership of Dave Barry's column in a local newspaper which I find a pretty low mark.2003:D4:DBC7:DB48:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, you're not doing the best job of summarizing this account. It's not just some minor local paper - the Miami Herald is one of Florida's biggest and longest running newspapers. Then there's also the fact that the poll was published in a nationally published book, Dave Barry's Book of Bad Songs by Andrews McMeel Publishing. So it's also content featured in a t's published book. And as mentioned before, the writer of this book, Dave Barry, is not just some random small-town po-dunk local contributor. He's a published author who has won a Pulitzer Prize. There's much cleanup needed in this article, but you're focusing on one of the more strongly sourced entries here... Sergecross73   msg me  12:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I disagree. My local newspaper has a greater circulation that the Miami Herald and I would not accept a poll done by it to be equal to "popular conception". Once again: It boils down to "readership of Dave Barry's column in a non-nationwide newspaper"; and that doesn't cut it for me. Dave Barry is a humorist and not a music critic so it being included in one of his books is not really a strong point here. I'd also like to point out that the quoted part "[I]t's hard to argue with survey respondents who chose it as the worst." sounds to me is if he's distancing himself from that point of view.2003:D4:DF39:2C54:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, its being sourced to a pulitzer prize winning author in a professionally published book on the topic of bad songs. You can't just cancel that out by saying "he's a local humorist". And "bad songs" and "humorist" aren't some sort of mutually exclusive subsets or something. It's not like it was written by a baseball player or a physicist or something. Sergecross73   msg me  14:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Different approach: The Jimmy Webb-penned "MacArthur Park" is popularly held as the worst song ever written.[56]
 * "popularly held" is not specific enough because it suggests (to me at least) a sort of all-encompassing phenomenom which this clearly isn't. Most other entries are very specifically sourced (poll from A in 2007, poll from B in 2013 and similar); this one isn't. The Guardian source itself mentions only the Dave Barry/Miami Herald poll; a further generalization is in my eyes not warranted. 2003:D4:DF01:DB48:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

"Mr Blobby", Mr Blobby (1993)
Blobby's self-titled Christmas release is regarded by many as the worst single,[93] Source given https://www.gigwise.com/news/106931/racist-azealia-banks-has-sold-worse-in-the-uk-than-mr-blobby doesn't back this. 2003:D4:DF01:DB48:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ "Mr Blobby - who has a single many deem the worst of all time...then maybe put on Mr Blobby's theme instead, which might be as awful a song" - seems pretty clear this text is supporting it. Sergecross73   msg me  12:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * gigwise is not a reliable source; so a blanket statement of "many deem the worst of all time" is not really supportive of "is regarded by many as the worst single" in the entry. Same for the metro.co.uk source following it.
 * Or to put it differently: If it is regarded by many as the worst song of all time and is said to be "regularly voted the worst song of all time." (metro.co.uk source) why aren't there any primary sources for this? The polls mentioned by the later sources are pretty specific ("worst christmas number one" and so on). 2003:D4:DF01:DB55:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That was not your original argument about Gigwise - you're shifting goalposts here. I'm also interested why you deem it unreliable. Sergecross73   msg me  13:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see myself shifting goalposts here. If I'm getting this right such blanket statements would be acceptable from reliable sources only (if not please correct me). Neither gigwise nor metro.co.uk are listed as "reliable sources". Also, the gigwise source was clearly using "Mr Blobby" merely as a reference point (real or imagined) for something completely different. 2003:D4:DF01:DB55:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The source list (WP:RSMUSIC) is a good list of acceptable sources, but it is not exhaustive. It's just a list of commonly found acceptable or unacceptable sources. Not being on the list isn't an auto-fail. The only auto-fails would being on the unreliable list (WP:NOTRSMUSIC), which it is not. Sergecross73   msg me  14:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

"Ice Ice Baby", Vanilla Ice (1990)
This track has garnered the label of the "worst song of all time".[81] Source had already put this in quotation marks so it appears to have been quoted from somewhere else. Original source for this was not given. Remaining sources put it clearly in "among the worst" category, though - but not as "the worst". A Houston Press critic named it as the worst song ever to emanate from the state of Texas, Not sure if this holds up for relevance here. Same for the rest. 2003:D4:DF01:DB48:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ You're reading into things too much, looking too hard for issues that aren't there. The current commentary is supported by the current sources, and is sufficient to meeting the inclusion criteria. Sergecross73   msg me  22:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Really? From my point of view the other sources combined would not have warranted inclusion. So it's up to the first source and that one's very weak. 2003:D4:DF01:DB55:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 09:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The initial source plainly and directly calls it worst song of all time. Your assertion that they put it in quotes should somehow disqualify its validity is bizarre and unfounded. Second worst is also valid commentary, and given the song's reputation, there's almost certainly more sources out there. Sergecross73   msg me  12:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Then why did the first source put it in quotes? To me, there are two reasons: It is itself a quote (likely) and/or the source wishes to distance itself from that point of view. Add to this that this is merely a sidenote in a review of another recording (in this case: Under pressure). As I see it the first source did itself NOT call it the worst song of all time. Second worst is "supporting evidence" at best. The rest is in my eyes not valid. If there are so many other potential sources given the song's reputation then why are the sources currently used so poor? 2003:D4:DF01:DB55:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Titles/awards are often put in quotes. Titles like "Worst Song of All Time" etc. Sergecross73   msg me  13:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So who bestowed that alleged title/award on it? And such titles/awards are usually capitalized (which interestingly you did yourself but the source didn't). 2003:D4:DF01:DB55:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You're taking it too formally. I mean it in the same way that I may say something like "best dad ever" or "best wife ever" - not a formal award, just saying a title like that about something. All we're looking for are music sources that have the author make the claim, or a reliable source conducting or reporting on a poll. It's clear that the author made this claim, and there's no reason to think he's quoting something else. It's good when you point out when sources don't cover statements, but these crazy interpretations of sources like this don't make any sense. Please be mindful of our WP:OR policy. We need to report what sources say and try to keep our personal interpretations out of it. Sergecross73   msg me  13:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, could you point be to the wikipedia entry for "People considered best dad ever" then? That would be equally pointless because everyone knows that this is not really measurable. Hence such a title contains automatically a certain amount of ironic detachment. And as far as the sources go: What sources say (in their own words) and what sources quote (real or imagined) are two different things for me. I simply don't see the source itself calling it the worst song ever. From my point of view you're equally making assumptions here. And once more - it's an aside in a text about a different song. 2003:D4:DF01:DB55:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * None of that is necessary. The source says it. The prose accurately represents the prose. The end. Your alternate interpretations are WP:OR, and being in a source dedicated to the concept isn't necessary - a passing comment sources the statement just fine. Sergecross73   msg me  15:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

"Surrounded by Silence", Design the Skyline (2011)
I can't take the sources seriously. pointing out the song has no musical structure, is badly out of sync, has a lack of any sensible rhythm within their playing, has near-unintelligible vocals consisting of screaming, and the members' physical appearances. I can't find any of this in the three sources. Apart from this: "the members' physical appearances" should from my understanding not be part of this anyway. It was also voted the second worst song of 2011 behind Rebecca Black's "Friday" on AbsolutePunk's "Worst Song of 2011 (so far)" poll.[143] Vote result was not archived; cannot verify. If it was second place, why bother? 2003:D4:DF01:DB55:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 10:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ - After looking up the band/song, it seems that it was just mostly low level internet rage going on. Few notable websites even covered them, let alone called them the worst. I saw a few low-level websites call them the worst band, but not specifically single out the song. The AbsolutePunk poll is too minor to keep the entire entry on. Sergecross73   msg me  14:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

"True", Spandau Ballet
True" was named the single worst song in history by Guardian journalist Luke Williams[66] and St. Petersburg Times music columnist Sean Daly.[67] Williams had particular derision for Gary Kemp's lyrics, saying: "I mean, 'Why do I find it hard to write the next line?'. It's because you're a crap songwriter, idiot."[66] At least the Guardian source is in my opinion not to be taken seriously which is - to me - obvious from its context. 2003:D4:DF39:2C54:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean, it does sound like a serious statement, but yes, it also seems like a passing thought by two rambling sportscasters killing time in between a sporting event or something too, so I guess I can see the concern here too. Sergecross73   msg me  19:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This would possibly also affect the "The Birdie song" (and there's a Sugababes song mentioned in the source as well that is not part of this list though). What I'm trying here (and what you probably have noticed by now) is to "weed out" the gossipy stuff. For both "True" and "The Birdie song" there are enough other sources. 2003:D4:DF39:2C54:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Saying that Williams's opinion is "not to be taken seriously" is reader OR. Williams – who has covered various subjects besides sport – calls the track "the biggest load of musical tosh ever", and that's that. 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:502:E165:E925:85D4 (talk) 02:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Context matters. The source doesn't strike me as if the subject was discussed in earnest. 2003:D4:DF39:2C65:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 06:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * To call "True" "the biggest load of musical tosh ever", and Kemp a "crap songwriter" and "idiot", seems like genuine commentary to me. The source also notes that the remark was written, not spoken, which indicates a measure of deliberation. I find it all very earnest. 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:ECC6:BD3E:2876:5675 (talk) 06:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If it was to be taken seriously it would rather reflect badly on Williams because it would then show that he doesn't know what he's talking about. The part about the lyrics is proof to this. 2003:D4:DF39:2C65:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 06:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * How exactly does he not "know what he's talking about"? The lyrics have been derided by multiple publications. 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:ECC6:BD3E:2876:5675 (talk) 07:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Because he fails to distinguish between the author and the lyrical subject. That's a common mistake but a mistake nonetheless. 2003:D4:DF39:2C65:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 07:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So critics of the lyric should be discounted, because they don't know what they're talking about and are making a "mistake". Thanks for clearing that up.
 * I trust that the article will remain as is. 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:ECC6:BD3E:2876:5675 (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, it IS a mistake to treat lyrics or poetry strictly from a biographical point of view. Don't tell me you didn't know that. 2003:D4:DF39:2C65:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 08:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm unsure of how to handle this one. One one hand, it seems to be an acceptable comment from a reliable source. On the other hand, it was just a passing comment in an article about sports, not a well thought out poll or essay on music. It's acceptable...but kind of in the same way that getting a "D+" grade is acceptable in school - barely and weakly. Its exclusion wouldn't affect the song's placement on the article. A compromise may be to keep it in, but maybe feature it a little less prominently. It's mentioned twice - maybe it ought to be trimmed down to once and not the lead-off comment? Sergecross73  msg me  15:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * But The Guardian is one of the most reputable publications around, and Williams is a seasoned journalist. How can his opinion really be dismissed when we consider the multiple blog-type sources used on this page? Even if we're going to take Williams's remark as a "passing comment" (again, I think he was very sincere), I find that it still carries way more weight than some piece in Gawker or a tabloid. I wouldn't object to the removal of the extended quote, though. 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:C1C8:5619:EA3F:3B7B (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't challenge the reliability of the source or the writer, or sincerity of the comment, I just mentioned that it was more of a passing comment from a stream of thought rambling in an article about sports, so we should maybe put less emphasis on it. Despite that, if you're okay with trimming out the quote, so it's one mention, we're pretty close to a compromise.  Sergecross73   msg me  00:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking more closely at the whole quote it becomes clear that Luke Williams himself is merely quoted by the sports reporter as having written this which makes it in my opinion even less reliable because the context of this (original) quote is missing (was it another article? was it a personal email? ...). 2003:D4:DF01:DB48:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * In that case it could have been a painstaking, agonising, extensively researched article about the worst songs in history. Highly reputable journalist, highly reputable publication. 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:61D8:9DC9:8FBD:9C98 (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Technically it isn't even clear if that quote comes from the Guardian journalist Luke Williams or from any other Luke Williams. Is this what nowadays goes for "reliable"? 2003:D4:DF01:DB48:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You're reaching now. Critics don't know what they're talking about, they're making a mistake... and now we have the wrong Williams. You might really like this song, but respected journos in respected publications don't. 2A02:C7D:6A60:8000:61D8:9DC9:8FBD:9C98 (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm reaching? No, I'm stating verifiable facts (or absence of) while you're guessing that it a) actually is the the Guardian's Luke Williams and b) that this quote could have come from actual research. Who's the one making assumptions here? 2003:D4:DF01:DB48:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And in case you're wondering: I'm not a fan, not at all. I think this whole article is bad and should better be deleted. Since this has obviously failed before I'm trying to get a much unverifiable and poorly sourced material removed. The "True" entry is ripe with this; and yes, there's more to come (the other sources are not much better). 2003:D4:DF01:DB48:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's The Guardian's Luke Williams. The comment is from Luke Williams, and it's in The Guardian. I find it very unlikely that the author just quoted a random Luke Williams off the street, or from another publication without saying who he represents.
 * Okay, we obviously disagree, so I guess it's up to others now. I do appreciate your effort to tidy up the article, though. Good luck with your mission. 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:50C2:A3FD:57B1:3AEB (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Genuinely interested: How do you KNOW it's the Guardian's Luke Williams? I'll gladly admit that this is the most likely scenario but do we really KNOW? I'm asking because over the whole article there are dozens of quotes of things people have (allegedly) written; and many (most?) of them don't seem to come from Guardian staff. Looks and feels more like copy-and-paste of a chatroom. You might also have noticed the tone and content of those quotes which seem to have beeen selected mostly for entertainment value. Examples: "Can you remember what brand of crisps is it that makes me think Cheese and Onion whenever I see the Ozzlers in their green and gold pyjamas?" says Iain Little. "And what flavour would England be? I reckon salt and shake. Bit too much faffing around with something that should be simple, result of which is some completely unsalted crisps, and some far too salty. When really what you're after is a nice light snack, you're confronted instead by a challenge to do the simplest thing. Whereas those pragmatic Ozzlers opt for the simplicity and effectiveness of the Cheese and Onion: does the job, but leaves a rather unpleasant taste in the mouth." Or the following ones: "Can't you invent some action?" says Eamonn Maloney. "Call an imaginary chess game or something? 'Knight to Bishop's 4! Unbelievable bravado from the Czech!' ... the West Midlothian Senior's Gin Rummy semi-finals? Anything!" plus "Shame you corrected the typo," says Eamonn Maloney, who has come to expect certain values from the Guardian. "Death-hitte' sounded like a sub-genre of German metal, or perhaps a Rammstein song." This really sounds like a chatroom to me. And that's the context in which the quote was made. 2003:D4:DF01:DB48:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

- As a compromise, for now, I'm trimmed back the Guardian's usage of it. I've kept it in, but trimmed out the direct quote, and its no longer the lead-off commentary anymore. It's now just a tiny mention, which fits better considering the source itself is but a tiny mention in an article about something entirely different. I don't see a good-faith, credible cause for concern that it's not the same Luke Williams who writes for the Guardian though. Its too big of a coincidence. Quite the opposite, the fact that they didn't specify is probably enough to show that it was their staff member. If it was someone else, they'd probably give context to help the reader. To give a comparable, yet exaggerated example for effect, let's say, you're telling a story, and part of it involves meeting a person named Michael Jordan. If you intended for it to be the famous basketball player, no explanation would be necessary - people jump to that conclusion automatically. If you meant the 40 year old white guy from you company's IT department, you'd probably add that context in there as to clear up any misconceptions. Same situation here. He probably wasn't identified because he's a prominent staffer, and people would know they're talking about him already. I realize that is speculation as well, but all the more reason why I don't think we have real grounds to be moving into this direction of doubting really... Sergecross73  msg me  18:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There's a "space" missing immediately after the first sentence now.
 * And we continue:
 * Seattle Post-Intelligencer critic Robert Jamieson called it the worst love song of all time.[67]
 * Source does not really give a musical reason, me thinks: but ‘True’ always rekindles severe PTSD — Previous Teen Social Disasters, like many a junior dinner dance in high school where everyone clung to the walls and avoided the dance floor — um, gym floor — as if it were Dante’s gloomy Fifth Level of Hell.” 2003:D4:DF01:DB48:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ - I added the space between sentences, but I'm not sure what you're requesting about the Seattle PI source. A reason doesn't need to be given. The statement just said that he said it. And he clearly did. Sergecross73   msg me  18:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't there be some musical criteria instead of just biographical? To me it sounds like: "I was young and felt awkward and this music reminds me of this hence it's the worst love song of all time." As I asked on top of the talk page: What exactly is the purpose of this article? Is this about musical qualities (however debatable) or about personal memories?
 * On a related note: Why aren't all the other "worst love songs" from that source included here then? 2003:D4:DF01:DB48:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 18:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you're better off nominating this article for deletion. I strongly doubt you're going to come by the kind of ultra-high grade referencing you seem to be looking for. 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:50C2:A3FD:57B1:3AEB (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * See the top of this page. Its survived 5 separate attempts to delete it over the years. The video game equivalent list has survived 6 deletion discussions. The consensus on these sorts are articles are to work on cleaning them up rather than just deleting. We're having some disagreements and heated discussions here, but this last week or so has seen more improvements than I've ever witnessed in recent years. It's a net positive.  Sergecross73   msg me  19:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Which leads to another question: When was the last deletion attempt? Top of page says 2011 but linked discussion is from 2009.
 * This is not to say that I'm trying to start a deletion attempt myself; just out of curiosity. 2003:D4:DF01:DB48:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * When comparing this list to the aforementioned video game equivalent list a couple of things come to mind. First of all, the Title List of video games notable for negative reception is in itself more balanced. But (to me) more important: There's practically almost always a very detailed reason given for this negative reception; and that reason has something to do with characteristics of the game itself. By comparison this list here seems to focus more on the "entertainment value" of the bad rankings instead of the reasons for it. Of course there's in itself a reason for it: Most sources (especially polls) don't give a musically related reason (see the Seattle PI source discussed above). And even if they do (like the Guardian review for "Lulu") the quoted parts tend to leave this information out in favor of the more "colorful commentary". 2003:D4:DF01:200:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 06:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright then, feel free to write some well-written prose additions then. So far, you've just made heavy-handed requests to delete content and entries. If you want some more detailed entries here, write some more detailed entries here. The video game article is in better shape because a concentrated effort by myself and a number of other experienced editors. This article has seen no such effort. Sergecross73   msg me  12:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I would; however most sources simply don't provide such material. I'd go as far as saying that many sources aren't even interested in any reasons and do it mostly for the spectacle. This is probably ok for a magazine but for an encyclopedia? 2003:D4:DF0D:F230:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 10:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * None of that has been true in my experience in writing music related articles for Wikipedia this last decade. Sergecross73   msg me  12:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2018
Please change "Loathed" by band members John Lennon and George Harrison to Strongly disliked by band members John Lennon and George Harrison. Neither reference supports Harrison having "loathed" the track. 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:14E:1C2E:DC5C:657 (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ - It's more or less the same thing. Sergecross73   msg me  14:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

"Loathed", in quotes, is totally unreferenced in relation to to Harrison. The word does work (the About.com source indicates that Harrison did have something of a loathing for the track), but not in quotes. Please remove them. 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:D919:CD94:16F9:B2AB (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done The quotation marks seem to convey that Harrison/Lennon used that word to describe their feelings towards the song. The CNN source on the article uses that word but doesn't say it's a direct quote from Harrison or Lennon. So I think it makes sense to remove the quotation marks. Also this is a minor edit that protection isn't meant to block. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 20:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Positive reception falls outside of the scope of this article
Edits like this do not belong in the article. It’s falls outside the scope of the article. I was given a WP:OSE counterargument of other off-topic info as a reason for keeping it in. I am not in favor of keeping that in either. That’s an oversight, not a valid reason for further off-topic tangents. Sergecross73  msg me  00:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Disagreed. This is obviously a case where a record that is considered "among the worst" also contains music that is considered "well regarded". So it's not uniformly bad and that certainly is worth mentioning in this context. 2003:D4:DF04:3B94:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that it’s great info. But it’s not great info for this article. This article isn’t about giving general background info on the music. We already have a place to cover that. The respective song/album articles. Sergecross73   msg me  23:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The entry is called "List of music considered the worst". An album itself isn't music; it contains music. If some music contained on an album is NOT considered the worst or even among the worst (in this case: quite the contrary) it should be included because otherwise the resulting picture is heavily biased. Perhaps it should be reworded along the lines "while the album as a whole was universally panned it also contains a number of songs that are highly acclaimed" or something like this. 2003:D4:DF05:2400:217:F2FF:FE00:2625 (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're concerned about the whole album getting a bad rep, then it should be reworded to specifically note the parts that were specifically criticized, as to not apply it to the entire thing. But going over positive qualities is outside of the scope of the article. If someone wants to read about potential success stories, they need to go to the respective music's article. If we noted all the success stories here, the article would balloon out of a manageable size and loose all focus. There's success stories all over the place with all of these songs. Ice Ice Baby may be trashed by critics everywhere, but it was a massive commercial success - it went platinum, helped its respective album To the Extreme sell 15 million copies. Chinese Democracy still went platinum and sold over 2 million copies. Etc etc. If we fill the article up with off-topic stuff like this, it'll be bloated and constantly off-topic.  Sergecross73   msg me  19:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

"Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da", The Beatles (1968)
I don't think this meets the inclusion criteria for this article and should be removed. The 2004 Mars poll in which it was voted worst song is only cited second hand through a BBC source and I couldn't find any more info on this poll. I don't see why it should be considered a reliable source in any event - Mars is a candymaking company; they are not in the business of journalism, music criticism, or polling, and we have no idea how the poll was conducted, who was surveyed etc. If, for example, users picked songs from a preselected list then that would present obvious issues as to the reliability of these results. As it is, we don't know enough about this poll to consider it reliable and Mars cannot be presumed to have any credibility in this area. In the other list cited, the song is ranked 48/50, hardly enough to be "considered the worst," and obviously the fact that other members of the Beatles may have disliked the song is not relevant to its inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.42.206 (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The BBC is a high level, mainstream, reliable source, they wouldn't dedicate an article to a fake/bogus poll. It's also from 2004 - a time where not everything was always present on the internet. Also keep in mind that Mars is a giant corporation, and there are many different Mars out there - see Mars (disambiguation). Sergecross73   msg me  21:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The worst article on Wikipedia ?
Hi, seriously, this should be deleted, it's not informative, it's biased, useless and so on. Cdrk (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC) cdrk
 * WP:SOFIXIT. Sergecross73   msg me  00:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Is this Uncyclopedia?
Why is Sgt pepper featured in this article? It’s one of the best album of all time lol. Just because a bunch of snobs and second class “music critics” thinks its the worst, it doesn’t mean the album is one of the worst lol. 186.9.52.70 (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * See sections above. Sergecross73   msg me  23:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

It's Everyday Bro, Every Dani Cohn Song, Pokemon go song & How it is by bibsbeautypalace, Sweatshirt & Everday Saturday?????????
They have to be in the list.

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2018
Remove Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band from the top of the list. It is falsely placed there. It is the greatest selling record of all time. 110.149.113.234 (talk) 04:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * See section above. It shouldn’t be done yet, it’s actively being discussed and edit-warred over. Sergecross73   msg me  11:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Surely if it's being 'edit-warred' over, that suggests it shouldn't be included in a list like this? There is a substantial section on the albums actual article concerning retrospective reviews and some of the negative opinions of it. Seems very out of place here, especially at the top of the list. Comes across almost as trolling. 86.138.138.195 (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The addition is well-referenced. People are allowed to dislike Beatles albums. 2A02:C7F:8EA3:B00:6D6D:A7EB:4AB0:9A73 (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The album is placed at the top of the list because all of the albums in the section are listed in chronological order. Interlude 65  (Push to talk) 20:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Edit requests are for basic, non-contentious changes. If edits are being challenged and discussed, then you need to join the discussion instead, in hopes of finding a consensus for how to move forward. Not “trolling”, just basic protocol. Sergecross73   msg me  22:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The Firm - Star Trekkin'
One of the most horrid songs ever to be produced. I'm unaible to add any sources myself nor verify any information but I would like to know what you guys (or girls) think about this one. Oxygene7-13 (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m not familiar with the song, but without any sources, it definitely needs to stay off the list. The article’s reception section doesn’t make any claims that would warrant putting it on the list either. Sergecross73   msg me  17:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I know Wikipedia can not be used as a source but the article about the song says: British Sunday newspaper The People included it in a list of the most irritating songs in 2005, calling it "Funny, but dreadful. Oxygene7-13 (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that. But that’s not that strong of an argument. It’s one of many irritating songs for just a single year. That hardly calls it one of the worst of all time. Sergecross73   msg me  17:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's why my question to you lot is: Could someone be so kind to take the effort to find some sources? It just can't be that it does not pop up on some lists of some kind... Oxygene7-13 (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2019
ὪἪ Ἣ 2601:989:4200:1049:9DFD:A82F:1934:FA31 (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Roadguy2 (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

"Sgt. Pepper's" as one of the worst albums ever
While there are a few sources that say that the album is bad, Sgt. Pepper's is considered by many more to be one of the best albums ever made. So I don't think it qualifies to being here. If a few sources say that the Godfather is bad and overrated, we shouldn't put it here, because a lot more consider it one of the best films ever made. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 17:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)