Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/22 Greatest Voices in Music


 * 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

22 Greatest Voices in Music

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This was tagged as speedy for nonsense, but doesn't qualify so I took it off the chopping block. I'm bringing it to you, the kind people, to decide this one. I would have PROD'd it, but it is actively being worked on. the_undertow talk  20:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The kind people?  Us?  Mandsford 22:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete I agree, its not material, I can make heads and tails of it. Still doesn't belong here though. Rackabello 22:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Random, trivial, objectively meaningless. Abberley2 01:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Strong Delete It could be filed under non sense, OR, advertisement... add on! Brusegadi 02:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - wouldn't this be a copyvio if it's taken from MTV/Blender/whatever? If not, I don't think it's encyclopedic anyhow. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Copyvio unless it has sourced information on the list - reactions, press coverage outside MTV and Blender Magazine, etc. --Phirazo 04:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The nominator has failed to provide a rationale for nominating the article for deletion. Moreover, half of the editors here who suggest that the page be deleted have also failed to give a valid reason. It seems there is a growing tendency for people to want an article deleted simply because it needs to be worked on. Deletion shouldn't be the first thing that comes to mind; it isn't an accomplishment. Oran e   (talk)  14:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Alright, I'll list a few. Without secondary sources, this is inherently POV (as it stands, the list is presented as The Truth, the article would need a secondary source to assess this list somehow).  Without secondary sources, this is also a copyright violation.  In order to qualify for fair use, there would need to be critical commentary, of which there is none (Wikipedia policy further dictates this missing critical commentary must be attributable to a reliable, independent sources).  People come out with these "Greatest Evar" lists all the time, how is this list notable? --Phirazo 17:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Those are very valid points. I was never implying that the article be kept (this is, after all, the intellectual property of MTV and Blender Magazine&mdash; there is such a list that was aired on TV in 2003, and is reproduced here). I was just troubled by the fact that people were voting "delete" without citing specific reasons (as if simply trying to get in on the discussion). You are the only one here who display any knowledge of our policies. Oran e   (talk)  00:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Pointing out that a particular user is the 'only one' who knows policy is belittling to others. It would be best suited to 'congratulate' users on their knowledge of policy on the respective talk page, instead of a public handshake. As the nominator, I'm responding to your comment about my 'failure.' I made it very clear that this did not qualify for a speedy deletion, so I brought it here. I made quite sure that I DID NOT assert an opinion, and went as far as stressing that I am leaving it in the hands of others. Many times when an article doesn't quite fit PROD or Speedy deletion, it is taken to AfD in the spirit of debate and discussion. the_undertow  talk  05:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * First off, I did not state that the editor was the only one who knew the policies. I stated that he was the only one who "displayed" knowledge of the policies. There is a difference. In any case, I see nothing wrong with a well-deserved public handshake. Yes, you stated that the article did not qualify for speedy deletion. However, that's not nearly enough. When you are nominating an article for deletion, you are supposed to state why the article should be deleted&mdash; i.e. what policies and guidelines does it fail to meet, and how it fails to meet these policies. Otherwise that defeats the entire purpose of the discussion (you can't lead a discussion if you don't know what to discuss). Moreover, people stating "delete per nom" makes the entire process more confusing. As a closing Administrator, I definitely wouldn't delete the article. The least I could do is ask that people restart the discussion process. Oran e   (talk)  19:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Full list is copyvio, show was stupidly done, premise is weak, list is useless. Wasted Time R 03:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether the show was "stupidly done," or weakly premised has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Oran e   (talk)  09:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as copyvio and POV, as stated by Phirazo.--JayJasper 12:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.