Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albums that have been considered the greatest ever


 * 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 of the debate was KEEP, but demand NPOV and references. -Splash talk 00:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Albums that have been considered the greatest ever
Inherently POV, at least without scrupulous referencing and fact-citing. FuriousFreddy 23:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 *  Speedy Strong keep. Didn't you just nom all the song articles? Weren't they all kept? What is the point of continually nominating these lists? -- JJay 00:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Could you please place the AfD template on the article. -- JJay 00:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Apoligies; I never saved my changes when I was filling out the AfD "paperwork". And this is not a bad faith nominatiuon. I see that the list of "songs considered the greatest ever" was kept as "no consensus", although the delete votes outnumber and (as far as reasoning) outweight the keep votes. Nominating two lists isn't "continually nominating lists". But, in all honesty, there's really no reason for a list like this, besides the inherent POV that will result from lack of geographical scope, lack of genre variation, and lack of factuality (The Chronic popularized sampling? Really now...)--FuriousFreddy 00:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, it wasn't just you who nominated the articles. But the complaints you raise could have been addressed on the talk page-by editing the article-through use of templates, etc. Instead, you decide to go straight to AfD. That is unfair to the many editors who have worked on this article for a long time. -- JJay 00:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This may sound cold, but the amount of time users put it working on an article has no bearing on whether or not I list it for deletion or have it merged. Someone could write a perfectly formatted, 23K article on the contents in the platic cup on my desk, and spend months working on it; if it needs to be deleted, it should be deleted. Since we already have the List of Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time and similar lists, all this is really going to do is either (a) apre those lists or (b) introduce personal preference and POV, as shown currently. As such, I don't see the neccessity for it (or the similar list of films, songs, etc. Wikipedia is rapidly becoming into a teenage fan portal. --FuriousFreddy 01:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well those lists are very different...but the bottom line is that you want this list cut, the part about lack of geographical scope, lack of genre variation, and lack of factuality is really not the issue for your nom. In any case good luck explaining your case to the other keep voters, I have nothing further to say about it. -- JJay 01:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't see why the state of the article can't go into the afd discussion when it isn't at all likely that that state is going to be changed. This article will continue to be only pop albums, it being "fixed" will only be the result of all of the biases common on wikipedia being added to this list. Lotusduck 03:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename/move to something a little better sounding, I have issues with the term considered being in the title, but I'm not coming up with a better alternative (writer's block!) Barring that, I would say Keep based on the fact that these albums have indeed been named "Best Ever" by some credible body at some point. Arkyan 00:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Someone needs to cite those credible references, then, and get rid of the POV that fills the article. --FuriousFreddy 00:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is possible to write an NPOV article on this topic, though it will certainly be difficult. But see for instance List of films that have been considered the worst ever, which in my humble opinion is a very good article and an example of what lists should be. The article should be constantly reviewed and further entries should be included only when they were considered the greatest ever by someone notable (mainly music magazines, I think). No "it is widely regarded as" and no "it is the favorite album of singer X". JoaoRicardotalk 02:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename Albums which have appeared consistently in best album rankings Endomion 03:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, not inherently POV, as the nominator points out. Kappa 05:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep to be consistent with other AfD decisions.  Grue   17:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Unverifiable and inherently POV. Considered by whom? "Greatest Ever"??? Why dont people spend more time writing articles with real encyclopedic merit? --BadSeed 00:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is deserving of its entry on Wikipedia because it provides an overall picture of the most renowned albums in history - it cites a number of other articles such as Rolling Stone and provides a birds-eye view. The article title could be better named perhaps Most Renowned Music Albums Ever or such-like (the article seems to be divided into Best Selling, Genre Defining, Best Ranked) so perhaps an all-encompassing title such as Most Renowned would be more apt than the current title. The intentions of the article are fairly clear but I agree with others that the title requires renaming jgianni 00:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep We have similar pages for Computer and Video games as well as films (both best and worst). I see no reason why we shouldn't have a page dedicated to music so long as we keep the citations and references credible. -- Chupon 01:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Since certainly more albums are made than films or videogames, can we agree that this should be moved to "Pop albums which appear consistently in top rankings/reviews"? Certainly the eventual mixing of comedy albums and folk albums would only confuse the article. Lotusduck 03:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You have a point. I agree the title should have some reference to pop/rock. Maybe even American/British pop/rock? Oh, this is getting complicated. I'm getting second thoughts here. JoaoRicardotalk 05:55, 2 January 2006 (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.