Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of music considered the worst


 * 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. Consensus seems to be that this should not be deleted, though cleanup may be warranted. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

List of music considered the worst

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article (like all "List of X considered the worst" articles) is incredibly subjective, and easily fails WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. There is absolutely no way to verify that the music listed herein is universally considered the worst.

Where are the authoritative references? There aren't any. Every single entry here suffers from conformation bias. Someone picks an album they don't like, seeks out references that support them, and ignores the rest. The first entry in this article is Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and it highlights the flaws with this type of article perfectly. That album has run the entire gamut of critical reception - from being called the worst album ever by Melody Maker to being labelled the best by Rolling Stone. It could easily be on this article and the "best music" article...

It only takes one "reference" where somebody calls something the worst or best for it to be eligible for one of these articles. Almost anything could be listed here. They have no place on Wikipedia, and should all be deleted. However, I'm opening the discussion on this one because it's by far the worst.

It's not like there aren't alternatives either. Verifiable articles like List of films with a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes exist, and are far more suitable for Wikipedia. Klock101 (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The equivalent film article has been nominated for deletion 10 times without any consensus to actually do so, so I really don't expect this will close with any result other than retention. Much like the film article, this has a demonstrated inclusion criterion – here, having been described as the "worst ever" by at least one reliable source – which appears to be routinely ignoring in favor of including song and albums that are adjudged merely very bad. Nevertheless, "editors aren't following the list rules" has rarely been deemed a cause for deletion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The inclusion criteria you cite is fundamentally flawed. [H]aving been described as the "worst ever" by at least one reliable source - this is absolutely not what the title of the article suggests. If that is to be the inclusion criteria, then the article should just be called "List of music that at least one person has called the worst ever". There should be consensus as to what is worst, and this is impossible to establish under NOR and NPOV. Klock101 (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT, WP:NOTCLEANUP, etc. Sergecross73   msg me  00:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The crux of my argument is that it can't be fixed within Wikipedia's guidelines. Klock101 (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Sergecross73   msg me  00:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - There is a consensus for these types of articles to exist.
 * 1) This article has already survived 5 AFDs.
 * 2) The video game equivalent has survived 6 AFDs
 * 3) The film equivalent has survived 10 AFDs.
 * Look, I get it. Editors complain on the talk page off and on about the scope, or that their personal favorite shouldn’t be on the list. But the answer isn’t deletion - AFD is not cleanup. The answer is improvement. Go to the talk page and propose new, workable inclusion criteria, and get a consensus that supports implementation of them. That’s definitely helped at the video game equivalent a few years ago. Sergecross73   msg me  23:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just adding that the video game equivalent is List of video games notable for negative reception, which is somewhat different. In my opinion, the content of that article matches the title far better than this one. Klock101 (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not. I’ve maintained both off and on for years. They just had a consensus for a different title there. They document the same thing. Sergecross73   msg me  00:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, they shouldn't document the same thing. There may be plenty of overlap between "List of games considered the worst" and "List of games notable for negative reception", but those titles refer to two different things and suggest different inclusion criteria. Klock101 (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Great. I look forward to discussing that with you on the talk page, because it’s a cleanup issue, not a deletion argument. Sergecross73   msg me  17:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:OTHERSTUFF does indeed exist, but I would like to see the users above at least attempt to justify this as a concept for an encyclopedia article. All but one of the previous AfDs were held in 2005 and 2006 when Wikipedia standards and processes were quite different, and last was opened nearly nine years ago. Endymion.12 (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Theres a difference between OTHERSTUFF, which is just randomly pointing at other situations, and precedent- pointing at discussions on the same thing, and very similar things, that had formal discussions that closed in a manner that didn’t end in delete. The former is not okay, and the latter is very okay. This is very clearly the latter, and we’ve got 20+ instances of it. That aside, if you prefer your arguments rehashed for you rather than reading up on it yourself, I’ll help you. All entries are reliably sourced to music journalists or polls that meet the RS requirements. And if they aren’t, I fully support their removal. I’ve frequently altered or removed shaky entries when concerns are brought up on the talk page. (I did not write the article, but I frequently address requests since the page is frequently page protected.) Sergecross73   msg me  23:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This clearly doesn't fall under WP:COMMONOUTCOMES, at least not yet, so you can do the hard work of actually justifying this as a fit topic for an encyclopedia entry. Endymion.12 (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure what more ludicrous here, citing “common outcomes” on an article that has survived 5 AFDs, or the person who who’s done nothing lecturing the guy who has been fielding edit requests and cleaning up the article here and there for years on putting in more work. Unreal. Sergecross73   msg me  00:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I cited WP:COMMONOUTCOMES because this genre of article literally isn't listed there. Endymion.12 (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So what? That means nothing. That’s not a requirement or a valid argument towards deletion. Sergecross73   msg me  13:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - Oh brother, here we go again; just another case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT poorly masquerading as a "helpful" (yet succinctly under-educated) contribution. Like Sergecross said, AfD is not cleanup, and in addition, Klock is clearly unable to see that Sgt. Pepper is included at the top of the albums list because all of the entries in the article's sections are sorted in chronological order. If all the other "List of X considered the worst" articles have managed to survive several AfDs, then this one absolutely should as well. Need we say more? I think not. Interlude 65  (Push to talk) 23:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's keep WP:PERSONAL in mind, shall we? Klock101 (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If all the other "List of X considered the worst" articles have managed to survive several AfDs, then this one absolutely should as well Why, actually? Perhaps you didn't bother to actually look over the old AfDs, and didn't notice how old they are. Endymion.12 (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You have also entirely missed the point with the Sgt. Pepper comment—the nominator was simply using the first entry as an example, and didn't comment on its location within the article. Endymion.12 (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Endymion, actually, I have noticed that those AfDs listed here are old as hell, just so you know. Interlude 65  (Push to talk) 00:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - No, this is not a matter of confirmation bias, the music has certainly been "considered the worst". Are those opinions subjective? Yes, that's what makes them opinions, but they've still been "considered" the worst. I cannot imagine having this discussion about a list of films considered the best. Though I don't recall ever looking at the article, I'm sure there are several obvious picks there (Citizen Kane is, I'm sure, is quite well sourced).
 * The problem with the current list is not the topic, it is the selection criteria. One source is not a good idea. Most similar lists demand at least two. The list of worst films demands several calling it the "worst ever" from a wide spectrum of sources, with a couple of books mentioned specifically as examples.
 * As for Sgt. Pepper... while I'm not a huge fan, I know it is often presented as one of the best ever (I say it's one of the "most important", rather than "best", but I digress), the inclusion is not (by itself) an indication that the list is garbage. Instead, it is a clear indication that opinions are, by definition, subjective.
 * Yes, by all means take to the talk page and fix it. If reasonable criteria depopulate the list, that is a different issue and might be a reason to revisit this issue, but we aren't there yet. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Fully support increasing the “1 source” inclusion criteria. I think I’m the one who implemented it years ago after starting a discussion and realizing that there there weren’t really any inclusion criteria at all. It was just to implement any standard at all really - one was better than zero. (And honestly if you looked through the talk page archives you’d be shocked to see how many entries were rejected or removed with the 1 source rule. It’s not the best but it kept a lot of garbage out.) Sergecross73   msg me  02:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What exactly was the point of going out of your way to highlight the fact that I made a typo in "confirmation"? Klock101 (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ”Confirmation” and “conformation” are different words with different meanings. I imagine he was clarifying your typo for his arguments sake? Sergecross73   msg me  20:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Yes, it might need some work but deletion isn't the answer. Even if it's a list of opinions, most of them are well sourced and verifiable by sales numbers or polls.This article is in nobody's way and gives a good view of the general publics opinion. Oxygene7-13 (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per the arguments of Sergecross73. Dooligan (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and Clean Up - I have perused this particular article for years. It is indeed getting a bit outdated and messy (formatting), but as has been said several times above, the AfD process is not for cleanup. The article is loaded with reliable sources from pro music critics, and the lead paragraph clearly states that the list is based on the opinions of critics. The claim that the article is too "subjective" and should be deleted for that reason also doesn't hold water, because it is not subjective in itself but is about the subjective opinions of critics. It should be viewed as an article about the history of rock criticism, and if so, it passes the rules. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 13:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong keep I wasn't sure what to expect when I went to read the article. Fly-by-night articles, maybe. But that's not the case. Sources are reliable and verifiable. BBC, The Guardian, NYT, The Independent, The Chicago Tribune, etc. I do think guidelines should be established for this kind of article but that belongs on the talk page, not AfD. Aurornisxui (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly this is a notable topic, reasonably written, and quite well sourced. -- Paleorthid (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete this and similarly named lists. Unclear inclusion criteria. It doesn't include any work before the 1950s because nobody thought there was bad music back then? Only English music is bad? Џ 01:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * English Wikipedia. 2A02:C7F:8EA3:B00:2173:4694:5C06:34E7 (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Beyond that, it can be difficult to find reliable sources that he’s requesting. You don’t often find sources that declare songs from the 1930s as the worst song ever. Nor would an English editor be likely to come across the worst foreign language song unless it’s sonething massive like Gangnam Style, but they’d be welcomed into the article if anyone made a valid sourced proposal. Not that it matters, as the bulk of the argument is one giant WP:NOTCLEANUP violation. Sergecross73   msg me  02:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly a notable subject, passes WP:GNG by a wide margin. Criteria and content disputes should be worked out on the talk page but AfD is not the venue for that.LM2000 (talk) 07:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean. There are hundreds of sources online about the worst songs and albums. Let's just limit ourselves to widely-panned releases. Mewtwowimmer (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment There is no doubt this is a problematic article given its random criteria on how the songs and albums are selected. Despite the argument that about it is an issue about cleaning up, there is no evidence that those in the talk page are interested in cleaning up, for example the complaint about using Mars (which everyone in the UK knows is a confectionery company) for opinion on music is blithely dismissed because it was reported on the BBC, completely ignoring the point of the complaint. I can see many other entries that don't belong there, for example "Baby" by Justin Bieber as the most disliked video (which is not what this article is about - "most disliked" is not the same as "worst", and "video" is not the same as "music"). Whatever happens with this AfD, I can see many more AfDs on this article because of the refusal to fix the article by those involved. Hzh (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da" entry uses public opinion, not the opinion of Mars ("a listener poll organised by Mars"). Bieber's "Baby" clearly has a Time Out poll supporting it as the worst. You're ignoring what's in front of your eyes. Dooligan (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What you’re describing is unfortunately a problem with Wikipedia/AFD in a general sense. It happens a lot. People will go through the minimal effort to try to get it deleted, but few will go through the bigger effort of working towards improving it. I’ve maintained the article for years, and remain there to bounce ideas off of on the talk page, it some decides they do want to work on it though. Sergecross73   msg me  20:02, 23 January 2019 (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.