Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs in English labeled the worst 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. Jaranda wat's sup 00:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

List of songs in English labeled the worst ever

 * List of songs that have been considered among the worst ever was previously nominated for deletion on 2005-11-15. The result of that discussion was "keep".  For the prior discussion, see Articles for deletion/List of songs that have been considered among the worst ever.

Subjective listcruft.
 * Delete as subjective/unmaintainable listcruft. --Nintendude 04:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Amusingly informative in its own way, and about as "objective" as such things can be. AnonMoos 05:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. It's Too soon after last month's AfD keep. -- JJay 05:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Too soon to renominate   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  08:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Too soon to bring back here, yes, but it should still be deleted. Eusebeus 10:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. It's as sourced as such a list can be.  Please, let's spend our time making sure unchecked vandalism doesn't slip onto USA Today instead of rehashing this. Durova 14:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The list is really very poorly sourced. -- JJay 18:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep renomination too soon. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as a too-quick renomination, and a Weak Keep on the merits. CarbonCopy 16:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, the renomination is way too soon - David Gerard 17:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I liked "Barbie Girl" thank you. It's a completely POV list, recent renom or otherwise. -^demon 18:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. There are no citations, only vague mentios of disapprovals from certain groups of people and magaznes. "Citation" means footnotes with page number, publishing company, etc. As it is, there's only a handful of songs on here, and the list could harldy be called non-POV, non-biased, or even a good starting point for a good list. --FuriousFreddy 19:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I bet that half of Wikipedia articles are not documented according your criteria, so why pick on this one in particular? Furthermore, if a radio show compiles a list of worst songs, then in all probability there ain't gonna be no "page number" or "publishing company"!  The article does contain a certain amount of subjectivity, and there's room for argument as to whether this could or should be substantially reduced, but in my opinion it forms a great "starting point for a good list". AnonMoos 23:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm personally wondering how "TOO SOON!" has any relevance whatsoever to the article's worth on Wikipedia. If it sucks, then time spent rotting on Wikipedia will not improve it any. If you honestly wish to keep it, then use reasoning that actually pertains to the article, not calling upon unofficial Wikipedia policy that's only used by keepists. No opinion. --Apostrophe 23:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Rules are there for a reason. The idea is to prevent the continued and abusive renominating of the same articles. The present nom is abusive and an insult to the AfD process. It should be withdrawn at once. And I voted delete last time, check the debate, which you didn't bother to participate in. -- JJay 00:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * My particpation, or lack therof, in the last debate for this article has no bearing on my point. --Apostrophe 03:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, but it does explain my reaction to your criticism of my vote as well as your willingness to ignore Afd procedures in the present case. -- JJay 03:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep A lot of relevant inof here, plus too soon after the last nomination. - Wezzo 20:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - There's a big difference between articles that push a POV and articles that talk about what is considered POV. This is the latter.  I read the page and it was interesting to me, and it's not just original research - the songs on there have all been identified by large magazine surveys or articles as really bad songs.  Certainly it should stay.  --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 00:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep About as well sourced as you're going to get here, and pretty accurate from my POV. D e nni &#9775;  01:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Encyclopedic topic, but citations should always be used. --Andylkl [ talk! 18:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. The article is encyclopedic and has plenty of potential, and meets none of the criteria for deletion. It is also true that common sense dictates that renominating an article repeatedly is counterproductive verging on abusing the system or pushing for a point. A fair length of time is required between nominations. For example, I'd love to nominate Category:LGBT criminals, Category:LGBT murderers, and Category:LGBT serial killers for deletion this minute, but because two of them somewhat recently survived VfDs, I'll wait until a safer amount of time has passed. And it's even worse in this situation, where the circumstances haven't in any way changed since the last nomination. Where's the justification for attempting to defy a clear consensus like this? Even if you honestly think an article shouldn't exist, you must work within the system to seek its deletion, not try to bend the system to your wishes and force things to go your way through sheer persistence. -Silence 16:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, but require more verification, such as at least two professional reviews and other reasons that a song qualifies to make the list here.--Fallout boy 07:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. This list does not cite its sources and does not contain references. It is also a matter of opinion and therefore has little or no relevance to being an article on Wikipedia. In addition, the list only views approximately ten–fifteen songs, making it even less noteworthy. Delete it. Quickly. &mdash;Hollow Wilerding 03:08, 16 December 2005 (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.