Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs that have been considered among 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

List of songs that have been considered among the worst ever
The major problem with this article is that it's original research. Rather than a reproduction of a published list of bad songs, this article is made up of some titles taken from such lists with no apparent methodology. Since there are no set standards for inclusion, the article could be expanded indefinitely. Some sources are cited, but many are not. This results in significant NPOV and verifiability issues. If someone has a suggestion as to how this article could be brought up to wikipedia standards, please share it. djrobgordon 02:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * ''Take note of the following past VfDs for articles nearly identical to this one: -Silence 22:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Films that have been considered the greatest ever (May 2004)
 * List of films that have been considered the worst ever (September 2005)


 * Weak Keep. It does provide citations for each of the entries, and it does mention Shatner's LSD, which has definitely earned its place on any such list.--SarekOfVulcan 02:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Among the entries without citations: She's Having My Baby, I Love You, She Bangs --djrobgordon 02:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep but delete all entries that are not sourced. State strict criteria requiring sources be cited, and not just someone's opinion. Also there's quite a bit of POV comment needs to be trimmed. I gave the "She Bangs" listing a rewrite to not only remove POV but also to better cite why it's considered one of the worst songs. Suggest, actually, that this be renamed "List of RECORDINGS that have been considered among the worst ever." 23skidoo 02:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Tag for cleanup and weak keep as above. Ben Aveling 03:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. It is not original research to write an article that isn't a copy-paste of a pre-existing article. "Original research" would be saying "x song is bad" when no one significant has said that before; listing various songs that have been especially noteworthy for a source saying that they are bad is not "original research", it's combining old research into a new, easily-accessible way. In fact, I'd be more tempted to delete this article if it was a "published list of bad songs", since it'd very likely be a copyvio and in any case would be 100% useless (since an external link or "further reading" mention would suffice just as well). If there are POV or verifiability problems, be constructive rather than destructive: make them NPOV and verify them. -Silence 03:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The current article is cited. It's just the talk page where speculation runs rampant. As long as that stuff doesn't get to the article page, we should be fine. I promise to keep an eye on this one and revert if that does happen. &lt;font color=&quot;#663366&quot;&gt;Jacqui&lt;/font&gt; &#91;&#91;User_talk:Jacqui M Schedler&#124;&lt;sup&gt;★&lt;/sup&gt;]] 03:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, of course! Trollderella 04:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems to be based on major polls and reputable sources. Now I can't get "Disco Duck" out of my mind. Durova 04:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - by its very subjective nature, how could POV ever be removed? Ifnord 04:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * See WP:NPOV. Kappa 07:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * NPOV doesn't mean not publishing opinions; it means not publishing original opinions, the opinions of the authors. It's appropriate to describe a song as "This song has been described as one of the worst songs ever," as long as you cite who described it as the worst ever and when. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. It's true.-- Dak ota     t     e  ''' 05:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, all the entries in the article appear to be cited and the subject is as valid as the list over the worst movies and games, etc. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, do a major POV-ectomy, remove unsourced entries and rename to a more manageable title. - Mgm|(talk) 09:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I am missing something: how can this ever be properly referenced and NPOV'd?  I don't understand the response to Ifnord's objection which I think is reasonable. After reviewing the back and forth, I am changing to Delete. Dottore So 11:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - entirely subjective, some people's worst song is another's favourite. I know people who love "We built this city" and "Achy breaky heart" (there's no accounting for taste, but the dislike is not universal, otherwise they'd never have got anywhere.). --MacRusgail 13:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "entirely subjective, some people's worst song is another's favourite." - Hm. You clearly don't understand Wikipedia lists, or at least this one. The article is not about songs that everyone thinks are the worst ever, it's about songs that a powerful majority have said are the worst ever in various polls. Since nothing in the entire world is agreed upon 100% by anyone, I'm surprised that you'd make such a bizarre demand as to only allow this article to exist if it was somehow fancifully possible to magically see what songs everyone hates (as though such a song could exist). It makes no more sense than expanding "no original research" to "no research", as some on this vote seem to be arguing for. As long as it's not Wikipedia's opinion that's being expressed, but rather various third parties, the article is completely NPOV, and just needs some polishing up and expansion to reach an acceptable level of quality. Hopefully you will regret your delete votes if this page ever reaches the level of quality of, say, List of films that have been considered the worst ever; if not, there's probably no chance of reasoning with you. -Silence 22:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Lists like this are quite possible to maintain and keep NPOV, the important thing is to have cites for each listing. Turnstep 14:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Considered among the worst ever"? By whom? Why should we care? Even if every entry on here was cited from some publication, it's still pointless. People's opinions vary; one man's trash is another man's treasure and vice versa. There is no coherent connection between entries on this list. It makes no more sense than List of songs that have been widely enjoyed. flowersofnight (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "By whom?" - By any noteworthy, major source.
 * "Why should we care?" - Not caring about an article's topic is not sufficient rationale for deletion. Plenty of people do care about this topic, because they're interested in major popular opinions and their reaction to various songs. I don't care about Albert I, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg, but you don't see me putting him up for VfD. And this article will benefit, inform, and interest substantially more people than Albert I, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg.
 * "People's opinions vary; one man's trash is another man's treasure and vice versa." - You don't seem to comprehend the significant other aspect of that saying: yes, there is no unanimity in what is or isn't "treasure", but there is certainly a strong majority! Most people who see an unearthed trunk full of gold coins, for example, would call it "treasure", even though some wouldn't; the fact that there is dissenters no more means that we can't discuss what people consider "treasure" than that we can't discuss what people consider "terrible songs", as long as we cite sources. You fail to draw the line between "every song is liked by someone" (which is as true as it is irrelevant) and "it's impossible to call any song widely disliked because there are always dissenters" (which is patent nonsense; unanimity is not a requirement for majority): the whole idea of these articles is to base it on majority and widespread opinions that have been documented by major polls, lists, reviewers, etc. It's not to find any song "unanimously hated"; since such a notion is inherently impossible, I'm surprised that you even considered that as a possible goal for this article, or for any other article. All articles on Wikipedia focus solely on the most noteworthy, relevant, and significant bits of information related to the topics they encompass. If not, we'd have a 10,000-page article called History of the Yosemite area instead of a 16-page one. The minor details are always assumed to be excluded from any page; this one is in absolutely no way different.
 * "There is no coherent connection between entries on this list." - Sure there is. "Songs that have been considered among the worst ever by noteworthy sources". You'll have a hard time getting more coherent than that.
 * "It makes no more sense than List of songs that have been widely enjoyed" - It makes more sense because there are hundreds of ways to try to determine people's favorite songs; album sales, polls, etc. And we already host numerous ones of those on Wikipedia. This is the only page which attempts to address in a general way the opposite: songs that are very widely (or very noteworthy for being) disliked, according to the numerous attempts that have been made to study this. It's an interesting article on a nice subject that has a lot of potential. That's good enough for me. -Silence 22:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Intrinsically POV –Shoaler (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * keep I'm not exactly sure, but this may have been the article that brought me to Wikipedia in the first place. It helps make the internet not suck, which is my primary wikiprinciple, I suppose. Youngamerican 16:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - generally sourceable, and well sourced. BD2412  T 17:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, lovely little article. Remove unsourced or dubious entries. Punkmorten 20:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep with TLC (criteria, etc.) The JPS 21:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Subjective list bollocks of the worst sort. Since it is now obvious that this will be kept, at least change the name to reflect what it is: a list of Pop Songs in English. Otherwise, most French songs would qualify, as well as every Eurovision song contest winner starting with Abba. --JJay 21:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * POV is not a valid reason, on its own, to delete any article. It's a reason to put an NPOV tag on the page so people can focus on improving it. In fact, there's a tag specifically created for this purpose: Template:Limitedgeographicscope. If the article doesn't have a global perspective yet, then, doi: add songs that have been widely considered among the worst ever in other parts of the world! What's so hard about that, that you think deletion is a better solution? Would you delete all the other articles that don't yet have a sufficiently international perspective, like Constitution, Actor, Civil rights, Fox hunting, Massage, Freedom of speech, Middle East, Cordless telephone? Why waste people's past and future efforts like that? -Silence 22:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I did not use the word POV. I did use subjective and bollocks, which is what I think about the article. The songs may be cited from lists that various people/magazine readerships/pundits/hacks have devised. Those lists are inherently subjective and yes POV now that you mention it. I am not in the business of wasting "people's past and future efforts". I was voting. As this article will be retained, I intend to take up your suggestion and waste some of my future efforts in scanning the horizon for a list of the worst   foreign songs that I might humbly contribute. --JJay 01:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I certainly wouldn't be so quick to judge that this article won't be deleted, though. It's only been one day and the delete votes are increasing rapidly. Out of 29 votes, there are currently 11 Delete (including 2 Strong Delete) and 18 Keep (including 4 Weak Keep and 1 Strong Keep), making the percentage for keeping the article currently only 62%. Could change easily. Anyway, I apologize for putting any words into your mouth which you didn't intend; I didn't mean to. And I'm glad you're willing to help improve the article even though you don't think it should exist&mdash;excellent attitude for Wikipedia in general. Though I still must disagree with you entirely&mdash;reproducing POVed lists on Wikipedia is completely in keeping with NPOV policy, which only states that we can't put our POV on Wikipedia; every noteworthy source's POV is absolutely fair game. That's how we can write any article at all: by representing all noteworthy POVs, not trying to pick and choose which ones are more or less "subjective" than others. If it's an external, significant POV, than we can mention it, no matter how distorted its views are. And if there are significant rebuttals, of course, we should include those too! -Silence 10:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete: "Have been considered?"  Excuse me?  That's every song, ever.  This is a ridiculously inherently POV, ridiculously unverifiable, ridiculously purposeless article.  Geogre 21:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That's what we have a shiny "move" button for. To move articles to a more appropriate title, but read the comment below. - Mgm|(talk) 22:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * All lists on Wikipedia are automatically assumed to only have the most noteworthy examples of possible things that could be listed on them. That's why we don't have "famous" or "noteworthy" or "widely" in every single list on Wikipedia: it's pointless. Just think about it. List of people believed to have epilepsy, List of Europeans, List of Eagle Scouts, List of people who were cremated, List of people who have disappeared, List of virgins, List of World War I veterans, List of Christians, List of deaf people, List of sculptors, List of suicides, List of people by name, List of Cubans, and hundreds more&mdash;think about it. These lists aren't meant to have every item imaginable, just the most noteworthy one: it's assumed that a "list of Muslims" or similar will only cover especially noteworthy Muslims (i.e. ones who would have their own Wikipedia article, generally), not every Muslim in the world! That's just much more efficient than having "famous" in every article on Wikipedia. In the same way as People speculated to have been autistic only deals with noteworthy speculation, "List of songs that have been considered among the worst ever", for obvious reasons, and quite clearly to anyone looking at the page, deals exclusively with major, widely-publicized polls and other noteworthy sources for various people's opinions on the subject. It's not meant to be an objective list of the worst songs in the world, which is why it's called "list of songs that have been considered among the worst ever", not "list of the worst songs ever". "Considered" assumes "considered by a noteworthy amount of people" and possibly "considered by especially noteworthy individuals" (like perhaps if Bob Dylan consistently labeled a certain song as the "worst ever"; though that might not be within the scope of this page). Arguing that an article should be deleted because a literal interpretation of its title would make it unmaintainable, even though it's actual topic, dealing, as it does, with only the most noteworthy and well-known "songs that have been considered among the worst ever", is quite maintainable indeed, is arguing for the deletion of tens of thousands of Wikipedia articles. -Silence 22:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete per Geogre and as fully, utterly, unmaintainable. --Blackcap | talk 22:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Infinitely more maintainable than any of the lists I mentioned just above. Do you really think it's harder to have a relatively comprehensive list of songs that have been widely considered the worst ever than to have a relatively comprehensive list of noteworthy Christians? -Silence 22:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong delete as original research and inherently POV. Plus it's listcruft. Plus all the songs I consider "the worst ever" seem to be No. 1 in the charts. This is an unsalvageable concept. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 22:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. A well-written, thoroughly referenced article. I found no evidence of original research. When I browse Wikipedia for fun and education, this is exactly the kind of stuff I look for. Owen&times; &#9742;  23:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as intrinsically POV. Nandesuka 23:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Because of the references to many lists of 'worst songs ever', even though Im not happy that We Built this City is up there. Astrokey44 23:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I like the comment about how "this helps the internet not suck."  Well put.  Jtmichcock 01:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Most entries are properly cited; those that are not can be removed. D e nni &#9775;  03:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Utterly Neutral. I hope this article doesn't give anyone the wrong impression about Wikipedia, because it seems at first to be inherently POV. And it will need to be constantly monitored for vandalism. Of course, every item on the list will need to be referenced. Yet despite all its setbacks, I think it has the potential to grow into an informative, helpful article. --TantalumTelluride 05:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I love looking at lists like this -- but not on Wikipedia. The person who wrote this article should put it on the web.  They probably put it here either 1) to get more eyes -- which it is not Wikipedia's job to provide -- and/or 2) lazy.  It IS a good article, but that's not the point -- is the article concept good for Wikipedia?  Also articles like this will be maintenance problems.  On the other hand, since Wikipedia kept the Worst Films list, its hard to justify deleting this one.Herostratus
 * Comment - Would anyone object to my linking to this VfD on the Talk page of List of films that have been considered the worst ever? Effectively, this vote is a vote on whether or not to delete the entire series of "X that have been considered the worst ever", since there's absolutely no significant difference I can see between a list of movies that significant sources have called "the worst" and a list of songs that significant sources have called "the worst". Therefore, this VfD is equally as significant to the editors of those other pages as it is to those of the much-less-frequented and significantly-lower-quality List of songs that have been considered among the worst ever, if not more significant. So, shall I provide the link for any interested editors? I don't think they'll be happy to see an article that's gotten over 1550 edits since August 2003 get deleted without their being given a chance to vote too. For that matter, this VfD probably applies equally to Films that have been considered the greatest ever, Computer and video games that have been considered the greatest ever, etc. I'll link to this vote there, too, if no one has any problems with letting all the editors most informed and experienced in this topic and very specific type of article have their say. -Silence 10:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * On the movie article, they police it pretty well and remove movies to a separate page which dont qualify as the 'worst' with a big notice on the talk page  - I think if this article did the same thing there wouldnt be a problem --- Astrokey44 11:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think this article already does a pretty good job of policing its entries and making sure they all have sources. I agree that a separate list of "removed songs" could be interesting, to avoid having people re-add songs that have already been rejected and to keep tabs on them. Not vital, though, and could be more of a hassle than simple removing anything that isn't properly sourced and explained. I did link to some of the above pages to help people get suggestions for various ways to improve this article, though; some images would help spice it up, and it might not be a bad idea to broaden the perspective to include other determiners for being considered "worst song" (like if an especially noteworthy critic, musician, celebrity, organization, etc. called it the "worst song", not just various polls and such). -Silence 11:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep and we need an official policy against repeatedly nominating articles for AfD when they've been kept very recently. If there's a problem with the previous AfD, it should go through the Deletion Review process. Andrew Lenahan - &lt;FONT COLOR=&quot;#FF0000&quot;&gt;St&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;FONT COLOR=&quot;#FF5500&quot;&gt;ar&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;FONT COLOR=&quot;#FF8000&quot;&gt;bli&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;FONT COLOR=&quot;#FFC000&quot;&gt;nd&lt;/FONT&gt; 14:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Isn't the deletion review page for articles that were deleted in a previous AfD? (Since the section was previously called "Votes for Undeletion" and was recently changed.) Or have they expanded it? -Silence 20:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong delete per nom, A Man In Black, flowersofnight, and others. This is inherently POV and unmaintainable. Side question: Does Trollderella ever vote Delete? Ever? Did I miss it? KillerChihuahua 16:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * A. Occasionally - you have to keep your eye on the ball if you want to see it! ;) Trollderella 16:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Smerdis of Tlön 20:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete In this case it's just way too subjective. Although there have been magazine polls of worst song. A list of what "won" in those would be acceptable.--T. Anthony 17:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This is such a list. Look through the actual page: it's all magazine polls and so on, all cited sources that have claimed "X is the worst movie ever". If you disagree with the name rather than the subject matter, vote for renaming rather than for deletion. -Silence 18:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

--Fallout boy 04:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well then keep.--T. Anthony 00:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with Silence. As long as it adhere to the NPOV, it seems encyclopedic. --Andylkl 18:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. For reasons given above. For persons who argue that list is POV and unmaintainable have not checked the list of worst movies, which is excellent. --Reflex Reaction (talk)&bull; 23:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, looks like a very nice list and well-maintained. Tuf-Kat 21:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, well sourced and not just being pulled out of nowhere, every song was deemed the "worst" by professional reviewer(s) and publications
 * * Comment. Unfortunately not very true. The article claims to be a list of songs that have:


 * achieved a notable level of infamy, through critical and popular consensus... based on specific mentions by music critics, producers, promoters, or other industry-related individuals or groups who have presented their informed opinions.


 * Sources viewed as noteworthy and major (to quote Silence) include www.Bestandworse.com [], a site with an alexa of 106,000 that features voting on topics like How would Jesus Drive? or Least likely place to find a Nun?; unsourced citations from local DJs; non-industry humorists Dave Barry and Mad Magazine; humor site www.popculturemadness.com (Alexa 96,000), which doesn't explain how it came up with its list except to say that it was voted on by visitors []; so-called BBC online polls, that had a very low sampling and were apparently not conducted either by or for the BBC. More reputable sources include VH1 (but no link is provided and I haven't found the polls online), maybe WFMU (a small local radio station) and Blender magazine, for which wiki already has an article that could be expanded-Blender Magazine's 50 Worst Songs Ever!. Now maybe I've left off a few valid sources, but I fail to see the notable level of infamy or the critical and popular consensus. I do see a list drawn from a seemingly random selection of ad hoc sources, largely geared to humor, without any real criteria in terms of polling validity, industry knowledge, or informed opinions. --JJay 06:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a subject on which people will inevitably have POVs; this is not the same, as some erroneously assume, as being inherently POV.  To point out that something needs work does not demonstrate that it needs deletion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * So how does that square this article with WP:NPOV and WP:V, then? - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 00:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is so retarded. 65.35.197.181 19:40, 19 November 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.