Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs in English labeled the worst ever (3rd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. Sorry, but there isn't a sufficiently overwhelming majority for deletion here to be called 'consensus', and lists like this can be sourced - the counterpart for films is significantly better-sourced than this. This list isn't intrinisically unverifiable.

Given the concern expressed over this list's sourcing (most if not all delete supporters cite this as their reasoning, and many supporters also admit that this is a problem), I encourage editors to be WP:BOLD and remove every single song that doesn't cite a reliable, well-respected source. Don't worry, you probably won't have to spend the next few weeks defending your edits - in my experience, when people find lists in Wikipedia they add their own pet thoughts and then never look at the article again, so if you remove those thoughts you don't encounter any opposition. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

List of songs in English labeled the worst ever (3rd nomination)
This article fails WP:NPOV and WP:NOR in every possible way. The group of songs listed seems very random, and there are several listed that I would definitely not consider the worst ever. At the end of the day, there is no way this article can be NPOV. Many of the songs follow with explanations of why the user PERSONALLY feels the song is one of the worst ever. This article is mostly original research. I don't see it being useful in any way, as it will always be filled with personal opinions and views. --Musicpvm 01:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 November, 2005. The result was "keep".

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 December 2005. The result was "keep".


 * Delete as per nom. Unbelievable this article is now in its 3rd afd nomination. Wikipedia is not a free webhosting service for "funny" lists dreamed up in your spare time Bwithh 01:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Marminnetje 01:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Can never be anything but entirely subjective. ~ Matticus78 01:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Keep - the arguments presented by others for keeping are convincing, particularly those presented by Captainktainer. The 3rd nomination also bothers me the more I think about it.  --ElKevbo 17:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, should this AfD also apply to articles such as List of films that have been considered the worst ever, Films that have been considered the greatest ever, and Computer and video games that have been considered the greatest ever?--TBC TaLk?!? 01:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point, I'm actually starting to think it should. However, this is an interim desicion, and Computer and video games that have been considered the greatest ever shows it based upon sales, not much about people's opinions. Green caterpillar 01:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the article cites sources and is not POV, it is referable to polling, sales and the like. Same applies largely for the others. This will always invite debate, but the listings are not referable purely to the editors' opinions. I would definitely vote delete if this were a ranking page, but it is merely a list of some songs that have garnered spectacularly bad reputations, reviews and opinions. SM247 My Talk  02:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see any problem with this, since much of the content is cited and based on things like polls and media coverage. I also don't think this and the other similar lists should be continually nominated for deletion even after being kept through previous AfD attempts. Amazinglarry 04:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is admirably well-sourced and cited; there's no problem with it. Penelope D 04:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is subjective and indiscriminate. Fails WP:NOR miserably. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. At the very least, remove every entry that does not have a verifiable citation. (and namedropping isnt good enough.  If VH1 did a poll, its probably online somewhere) Resolute 05:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article is criminally insane, just look at the title! -- Superbeatles  05:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom.  ''Em-jay-es  06:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep It is bad procedure to keep renominating articles for a start. This is not OR as it clearly cites sources such as:
 * The Cheeky Song (Touch my Bum), The Cheeky Girls (2003): This song was voted the #1 worst pop recording by Channel Four viewers
 * this would be "bad procedure" if wikipedia readers were a static population. I just found the article by chance (random page select) and found it assinine and un-encyclopedic. Anyone can put together a "worst of" list. That's what Blogs are for. Jackbox1971 23:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

. I am sure there will be plenty of people who will find this interesting and enjoy it. I did. Tyrenius 06:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. LotLE × talk  06:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep what's verifiable (polls, opinions of music critics and so on). Junk what isn't. BigHaz 09:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Although it refers to actual lists of disliked songs, it picks and chooses which songs on those lists to include, presumably according to the contributor's own opinion on the song. Lurker 10:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete again, as listcruft. Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. KleenupKrew 10:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete WP:CSD No content whatsoever. Ste4k 10:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you read articles, or just vote "Speedy- no context" on every single one? This article has a pretty ludicrous amount of content. -- Kicking222 12:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you read the policy? and yes I viewed the list, and there wasn't an article there. And content is verifiable. Ste4k 19:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is about as well-sourced as a list of this type can be (and what isn't sourced can and should be deleted). Yes, it's POV, but it's consensus POV. -- Kicking222 12:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete No content, POV -- Splette [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] Talk 15:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite per NPOV. Zos 16:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * delete per nom, NPOV, and unencycolpedic. amazon.com reviews are not valid sources. --Samael775 17:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - The contributors have done a good job sourcing their statements and providing relevant context, which is what an encyclopedia should do. If there's a problem with selection bias, the appropriate response is "fix it," not "delete it." If you don't have time, that's fine, but don't deny someone else the opportunity to fix the article. I'd also like to second the "bad form on nom" comments. Continually renominating things for AfD because the "right" consensus wasn't achieved is just wrong. Captainktainer * Talk 17:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, the last times this article was nominated were in November and December 2005, so I don't see what the problem is in nominating it again over 6 months later especially when the majority of the problems mentioned in the last two AfDs were not fixed and it continues to fail NPOV and NOR miserably. There are thousands of polls constantly taken all across the world by many different organizations (television shows, magazines, websites, critic lists, etc).  Even if a song is voted #1 on some random worst song poll, I don't see how it is automatically eligible to be considered the worst ever.  This article picks and chooses certain songs to display.  Many statements are opiniated and do not even mention sources and others that do, do not even provide a link to the actual poll data.  No matter how much cleanup it goes through, it will always be an extremely POV list. This is as unencylopedic as it gets. --Musicpvm 17:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Ramseystreet 20:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The point of this article is to express what people think are bad songs. It's a total opinion. Green caterpillar 21:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - unencyclopedic. We've been through this before with other lists.  Where does it end?  "List of songs in English that someone doesn't like"? "List of songs in English that make someone want to puke"?  The whole thing about "indiscriminate lists" is that a list should be helpful in some fashion.  Lists like List of 00 ZIP codes or List of Acts of Parliament in Singapore may not be particularly encyclopedic, but they serve a function - they show redlinked articles that need to be created.  Something like List of NCAA college football rivalry games or List of NCAA Division I-A Football Programs is useful, because it shows you more information than you can get out of just a category.  But this list doesn't really serve a purpose - it's just an indiscriminate collection of data. BigDT 21:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete This article is woefully subjective, and as tired an argument as it is, I don't see how this article could ever truly be made neutral. Also, opinions (which is basically what this amounts to) don't belong in an encyclopedia.  --NMChico24 22:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. We are building an encycolpedia here! Collecting indviduals comments in this manner feels very much like OR. And then we have personal/non-source opinions like Photograph's cloying, obvious sentimentality and omnipresence on radio in early 2006 led to it being named by some as the benchmark of bad songs for the twenty-first century. Really! Inner Earth 22:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, as there is precedent. As TBC mentioned, there are a number of other articles with similar titles; why have these, particularly List of songs in English labeled the best ever, not been AfD'd along with this one?  Since there doesn't seem to be a strong consensus here, I suggest re-listing as a combined AfD with every such "labeled best/worst" article. ~ Booya Bazooka 23:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - NPOV (on Wikipedia's part anyway) and not OR (look at all the references). I've always liked that song "Atlantis", though.  --Joelmills 00:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It is generally considered good etiquette to link to the prior AfD's. In this case, I can only find AfD #1. ~ trialsanderrors 01:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The other is located at Articles for deletion/List of songs in English labeled the worst ever. --Musicpvm 02:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Reading the article I have one editorial comment: There is no such thing as consensus in matters of musical taste. I might say Keep but only if this list can be renamed and restricted to songs that have been voted worst songs in meaningful polls (with a definition what meaningful entails). Barring this, I have to go with Delete as indiscriminate list. ~ trialsanderrors 02:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How about List of songs voted the worst ever? As it's an English encyclopedia, I don't think it's necessary to specify the language. Tyrenius 03:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would be ok with that, as long as there is some mechanism that makes clear what can go in and what can't. ~ trialsanderrors 06:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't quite work as some of these were not "voted" on. The title would need to be something like List of songs labeled worst ever.  And I don't see why we would have to specify criteria for inclusion in the list as the criteria would be the same for any other article: NPOV reference to a verifiable source.  --ElKevbo 06:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We have an additional criterion for lists which is WP:NOT indiscriminate. ~ trialsanderrors 06:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note. I have just been through the article and deleted the editor's own descriptions of the songs (which I feel are probably accurate as it happens). However, he does give the source of the "worst song" tag in each case, so it is not OR (i.e. it's not his choice), not is it POV, as it's not his opinion. I think the article could be expanded with more research and should cite more references, but I feel it is something that will be of interest to readers, particularly if brought up to standard. Tyrenius 03:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem here is that the author has simply picked and chosen whatever entries he dislikes from these lists and included them in this article. That is both OR and POV.  The only possible way this article can avoid violating both these policies is if the article was rewritten to show the top five or top ten of various "worst song lists" from reputable sources, ie VH1, BBC, Rolling Stone, etc.  However, in that case, it is merely listcruft, and violates WP:NOT as it would be an indiscriminate collection of information. Resolute 16:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete dumb. Unencyclopedic. If someone wants to start a blog they should just go to blogger and do it. Blogs are for venting one's spleen. Or message boards... Jackbox1971 05:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Information In order to make an informed judgement on this article it might be helpful to study the List of lists of songs and evaluate this one (and the arguments for its deletion) in the context of the other lists that exist. For a comprehensive view see List of topic lists. Tyrenius 05:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per others. How many times are these articles going to have to go through AfD?  I think we should lose the "in English" qualifier though. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This lacks any substance as a serious article. This is only pop culture blog material. It was also added to the AntiWikipedia which makes it even more ridiculous to keep. Just get rid of it all together.BrandNew21 10:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per trialsanderrors. No consistent mechanism for inclusion is stated or implied. "A consistent member of "Worst Songs" lists" is simply too vague to be of any use. Also "worst" is a de facto superlative, but some entries on the list are merely cited as "near the top" of pundits' lists. --DaveG12345 10:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as ridiculous listcruft, inherently unqualifiable. Suggest Salting as well. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, collection of trivia compiled from various sources of trivia. No criteria for exclusion exist. Reads like those sports trivia, that you find, say, on sweets wrappers. Dr Zak 15:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Mmx1 17:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - I've just spent some time trying to tidy up the article - deleting sections which have no sources or which are contradictory. Putting in references and links. I dislike the idea of long standing articles being deleted - especially articles which have survived two previous delete votes - but this article, and the two related articles: Films considered the worst ever and List of songs in English labeled the best ever do seem trivial, non-encyclopedic and attract the wrong sort of attention. I like the humour. I can see how such articles can become popular. But if we want Wikipedia to be taken seriously then we have to say that articles like this are great fun, but they belong in a general interest magazine and not an encyclopedia. As much as any of us like them personally and want them to remain, they do nothing good for Wikipedia's credibility. Such articles are the one's the media focus on when it comes time to drag Wikipedia's name through the mud. For the greater sense of what serious editors are attempting to achieve on Wikipedia we have to let these tongue-in-cheek, trivial articles fall by the wayside. SilkTork 22:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - As long as each song listed is cited, this seems to be a relevant, maintainable, useful, and NPOV-able list. Wickethewok 14:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep With sources referenced and careful writing, this will be a fine article in the vein of Films considered the worst ever - CNichols 02:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep.... Why not? Piercetp 04:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Forgive me, but I'm not seeing the excellent citations a bunch of you are mentioning. The criteria for inclusion are vaporous and subjective (see WP:NPOV), and two of the six sources cited are nothing more than lyrics pages. I hate to say this, but I'm not convinced of the article's encyclopedic notability, or of its factual objectivity, or if it even has any capacity to become factually objective. There's evidence of cherry-picking by editors -- one source lists 100 songs, another 50, another 40, and the last one 20; how, then, do we find the article itself listing 21 songs, if not by an editor's own opinions? See WP:NPOV again, along with WP:NOR. One of the sources is even a forum, which runs afoul of WP:V. As I see it, none of the pages cited make any serious effort to provide the means by which they've designated any of these songs as "the worst ever," and none of them strike me as particular authorities on the matter. Citing a few op-ed pieces from an incredibly minute sample of mostly-unheard-of websites doesn't quite cut it, for my tastes. Sorry. Luna Santin 07:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment To the people electing "Keep", please explain how the current "cleaned-up" version of this list passes WP:NOR - it still contains such blatant POV as "Aqua's satirical dance number is not strictly noted as the worst..." (so it should NOT be in this list) and "'Disco Duck'... Near the top of The Book of Rock Lists' list of worst #1 hits" (so it should NOT be in this list), and that's just the first few lines. This list must use solid verifiable criteria for inclusion, or it is just obvious editorial picking-and-choosing per Luna Santin et al. These two examples prove the point categorically. Since no such selection criteria have been asserted or seem likely ever to be asserted, this is an obvious Delete as intrinsic NPOV and NOR failure with no hope of credible fix-up. WP:LIST is absolutely clear on this. It is not enough when it comes to lists to cite a random unnotable source per entry - criteria must be clear, self-evident and unbreakable from the start, and must apply to every entry in the list. --DaveG12345 11:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with the last comment. This list included plenty of material that should not even be there. This list is no different than an article at a humor magazine or a late night show skit.24.90.233.29 16:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The simple solution is to establish criteria and apply them, e.g. the song must have been called the worst ever by an individual of note, or it must have been called the worst ever on a notable medium such as TV, radio, press etc., or it must have topped a worst ever poll. The top three or five songs of such a poll could be a cut-off point. Anything else should be deleted from the article. Tyrenius 05:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP do we keep nominating things around here until we get our way, come on. It is sourced material dealing with notable material and just because you dont like it doesnt mean it shouldnt be kept, I dont like the New York Yankees yet I havent nominated them for deletion yet.--Kev62nesl 08:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll bite the bullet and check the citations, to back up my arguments. There are four pages cited, Channel4 News (notability?), Maxim, Freerepublic.com (blog/forum, fails WP:V?), and popculturemadness.com (notability?). I'll go through and list the rankings in that order (C4, Maxim, FR,PCM). A number is the song's placement on a list; an x means the song does not appear on the list; a yes/no applies to FR, which did not order their list.
 * Achy Breaky Heart, by Billy Ray Cyrus (9, x, yes, 17)
 * Atlantis, by Donovan (x,x,x,x) (strikes out)
 * ...Baby One More Time, by Britney Spears (x,x,x,x) (strikes out)
 * Barbie Girl, by Aqua (8,x,yes,x)
 * The Cheeky Song, by the Cheeky Girls (1,x,x,x) (only one mention)
 * Disco Duck, by Rick Dees (x,x,yes,15)
 * Having My Baby, by Paul Anika (x,x,yes,11)
 * Hollaback Girl, by Gwen Stefani (x,x,x,x) (strikes out)
 * Honey, by Bobby Goldsboro (x,x,yes,13)
 * I Love You, by Barney & Friends (x,x,x,x) (strikes out)
 * Ice Ice Baby, by Vanilla Ice (46,x,x,x) (only one mention)
 * Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds, by William Shatner (x,x,yes,x)
 * MacArthur Park, by Richard Harris (90,x,yes,1)
 * Millenium Prayer, by Cliff Richard (2,x,yes,x)
 * Mr Blobby, by Mr Blobby (6,x,x,x) (only one mention)
 * Muskrat Love, by Captain & T. (x,x,yes,6)
 * Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da, by The Beatles (x,x,x,x) (strikes out)
 * Seasons in the Sun, Tery Jacks (x,x,yes,4)
 * Shaddap You Face (46,x,x,x) (only one mention)
 * Tutti Frutti, by Pat Boone (x,x,x,x) (strikes out)
 * We Built This City, by Starship (83,x,x,x) (only one mention)
 * As we can see, six of the songs mentioned appear nowhere on the cited pages, and five of the songs only appear in one of the cited pages; that's half the page that's barely or never mentioned in the references. I'm curious how we listed #1, #2... then #6... and suddenly jump from #9 to #43, with regards to one page -- subjective cherrypicking, anyone? Maxim, probably the most notable source, is only used once. One source is a blog or forum, and isn't really admissable as a source... but that's one of the most-used sources in this article (removing it as a source puts seven more songs into the only-one-mention group, upping the ante to at least 18 of 21 songs we might call inadequately sourced). There doesn't appear to be any strong consensus between the cited pages, and I seriously question the argument that the pages cited represent any serious majority opinion among notable critics and organizations. If somebody wants to keep this sort of content, I'd encourage very strict criteria and listification to the effect of "songs called worst by X," instead of a central list (though a central list might link to other lists). The centralized page seems too high of a POV risk, to me, even before we address questions of notability. Luna Santin 11:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per numerous previous AfDs.  Grue   14:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It is obvious from the above research by Luna Santin and others that this article needs editing. Instead of deleting the whole article, the unsourced material should be removed and replaced with cited content from other well-publicized "wort songs" polls.  I think we should leave the article here and give users a chance to do this.  It definitely has a chance to be a useful and informative article. Amazinglarry 14:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, arbitrary criteria and a potentially limitless list that's loaded with opinion and original research. Wikipedia really isn't an indiscriminate collection of information... an article has to have a point, and simply cataloguing what you think are bad songs, or digging that the someone, somewhere once mentioned that they think it is crap does not make a valid article. - Motor (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * keep please per numerous previous afds why do people keep trying to erase this Yuckfoo 20:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree the second nomination shouldn't have happened -- not enough time passed, and I suspect the second nomination may have been in bad faith. For that one, I offer no defense. This one, though, it's been nine months since the original nomination, and that's time for a lot to change. Not to say I can't sympathize with you, I do, and your question is valid, I just wanted to point out the passed time. Regards, Luna Santin 21:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep but improve lots. violet/riga (t) 09:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. The consensus to keep on the 2nd nomination was founded on the unfairness of the nomination coming so soon after the first. The consensus to keep on the 1st nomination was founded on the principle that the sources checked out. Based on Luna Santin's research the sources do not check out. SilkTork 13:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: But delete all songs not supported by cites. Stephen B Streater 20:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Way too subjective. You can add pretty much any song to this list as long as you can cite a newspaper critic or some other wannabe musical elitist who doesn't like it. A major criterion for inclusion to this list is thus someones POV. --Ezeu 21:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine. As long as it is not the wiki editor's POV then it does not contradict NPOV. Tyrenius 21:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That is not true. Picking songs from random worst song lists and creating a "worst songs" article out of them is VERY POV whether sources are cited or not.  The way information is displayed (even if it is cited) can make an article POV, and in this case (with the random inclusion of songs), it definitely does.  --musicpvm 22:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The idea is to have as comprehensive as possible compilation of worst song lists and establish objective criteria, not to pick and choose which songs. Please read my points earlier. Thank you. Tyrenius 23:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per Luna Santin's research; indiscriminate (WP:NOT) and OR is not quite AFD bingo, but it's quite enough reason to delete this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, provided that songs included are derived from lists from *reputable* sources, eg Rolling Stone or whatever recognised music publications there are. Nothing from people's random blogs or bulletin boards should be included. And it shouldn't just be a case of "critic X doesn't like song Y, therefore Y is included", the song in question should be agreed by several *respected* authorities to be among the worst. Prefereably the list should mainly include songs featuring regularly in different sources' "worst songs of all time" lists. I don't see any difference between this article and "films that have been considered the worst ever" or other similar articles.Georgeslegloupier 07:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even if Wikipedia were an indiscriminate collection of information, this list is far too subjective and cannot be considered anything approaching NPOV. Even with "reputable" sources, the writers there would be compiling their own subjective worst list, to sell a few magazines; this is not the Washington Post reporting events at the capital or multiple scientific experiments validated in peer-reviewed journals. This is POV at every step of the way. See also Luna Santin's, DaveG12345's, and Musicpvm's comments above. Note that the other AfD's were 8 months ago, both by different users; no one is trying to bulldoze through a delete. Further, in the second AfD, half (7 of 14) of the keep votes have the quick re-nomination as the major, and in many cases only, reason for Keep. That is, that second AfD was largely a keep in the interest of maintaining proper process and was so dependent on the outcome of the first. —Centrx→talk &bull; 07:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note as I've already pointed out, this is a misunderstanding of POV. It is the wiki editor who must be neutral. It is not our job to assess a subject (i.e. the people labelling something a worst song) for neutrality. To do so would actually be OR. Tyrenius 15:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Can you explain the "misunderstanding of POV"? From what I can gather, you are advocating this list as a valid article because numerous reliable third party polls and whatnot do exist to provide this article with material. I hope that is correct. However, the problem with POV in this article to me at least, is that editors can cherry-pick from these various sources, in order to include the songs they feel are "the worst", and in order to exclude those songs they do not feel are the worst. Because the inclusion criteria are so very broad, POV problems are inherent to this list article. To go the other, "inclusive" route, and include everything from every "worst song" list ever made, would inevitably give us an article of unwieldy length with probable copyvio issues. So either way, this article topic is simply unworkable in WP, and the problem is its inherent POV issues. I think the WP:LIST guideline makes the point very well for cases like this, and I believe Luna Santin's research bears this out. --DaveG12345 16:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You have interpreted me correctly, up to the point where you mention "cherry picking", which would obviously be POV and hence not acceptable. There must be objective criteria establshed. I have previously suggested the following:
 * The simple solution is to establish criteria and apply them, e.g. the song must have been called the worst ever by an individual of note, or it must have been called the worst ever on a notable medium such as TV, radio, press etc., or it must have topped a worst ever poll. The top three or five songs of such a poll could be a cut-off point. Anything else should be deleted from the article.
 * The current version needs severe editing on that basis. --Tyrenius 17:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There is little possibility of reasonable criteria for this. Do we say "4 reliable sources" must list a song as worst? None of the entries qualify for that. So then we say "1 or 2 sources", but then we can easily find a bunch of "Worst" lists that do not list the song. The so-called "reliable sources" must have considered the matter carefully and decided that the song is not worst, but they are not going to publish "the 1 million songs that are not the worst". Maybe just list every song that has ever been in one of these lists, but then the article has 500 entries and becomes really long and rather unmaintainable, do we then split it off into "List of songs labeled worst ever by Rolling Stone", "...by Maxim", etc. —Centrx→talk &bull; 18:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I was expecting to take the worst song from each list. Stephen B Streater 18:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is really something for the article talk page. However, the article is not called "worst songs", but "labeled worst songs", i.e. a song has been called the worst, not that it necessarily is the worst. There may be a song that is held by majority opinion to be outstanding genius, but could be in the list, because some notable person has called it the worst song ever, or it topped a poll somewhere. That's how I'm reading it, anyway. Tyrenius 18:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Same here. How many lists of bad songs can there be in reputable sources? Take the worst from each list. Stephen B Streater 18:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, if the current article is immediately hacked down to include only the songs voted the worst (i.e. number 1) on the various "Worst Of" lists, and if the criteria of the article are adjusted to make it absolutely unequivocally clear that inclusion involves being voted the worst (i.e. number 1) on any such reputable and reliable third party list, then I would happily change my stance to Keep. But! If an editor were to subsequently remove such stipulations from the criteria for inclusion, or to edit them in any meaningful way, or to reciprocally do such a thing, to the extent that an edit war or wars were to ensue over this article, then I would expect a very speedy delete process for the article, without any of this AfD discussion having to be trawled through yet again. Because as it stands, this is an inherent POV article worthy of deletion IMO. It can only be kept under the very strictest caveats, which I believe (even if they were implemented or implementable) may even violate WP's core policies per WP:NOT.--DaveG12345 00:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be for an article of songs "voted" the worst. At the moment, this is songs "labeled" the worst. Tyrenius 00:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please explain the quantifiable difference, and why this article cannot be renamed if needs be (i.e., if "labelled the worst" proves, as it increasingly appears to be, utterly unworkable).--DaveG12345 03:13, 8 July 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.