Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pop albums that have consistently appeared in top lists


 * 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 delete. --Core des at 04:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Pop albums that have consistently appeared in top lists
Pure POV. No set criteria for what's included. Pianoshootist 03:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - i've been watching this page for a while now, and even tried deleting all claims that hold no cites. Not only does this remove half the article, but people revert/readd their favorite albums. In a perfect wikipedia with the most candor of prose this article could still not be done. Delete. JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 03:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete guess why. Danny Lilithborne 04:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "In a perfect wikipedia with the most candor of prose this article could still not be done." Well said. Delete. Andrew Levine 04:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Top what? Too ambiguous to be encyclopedic. Note: It would be a shame not to keep this article in some form, because at the least, it's a great starter list for someone putting together a music collection. That being said, it's still not "encyclopedic". Caknuck 05:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, this article has gone through AfD before as Albums that have been considered the greatest ever. Some said to try and keep the article in some form for similar reasons. Obviously it didn't work out. I think this whole she-bang should be 'nixed. JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 06:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, didn't slog through the history far enough to see the move. I was hoping for something more along the lines of a transwiki, but I'm not sure what project would suit it best. Caknuck 08:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Inherently POV; no discrimination as to what constitutes a 'top-list,' solely focuses on an arbitrary boundary of albums centered in western world, has no encyclopedic value, talk pages illustrates that it is simply a vehicle for individual editors to get the name of their favorite albums out there... There are also far better, more objective ways of discerning what makes an album one of high acclaim and/or quality (best-selling albums, grammy and other award winners, etc).  Need I go on?  --The Way 06:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Let's get this right -  a list of things which have been in lists.  POV.  Arbitrary. Emeraude 11:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Listcruft that is, by its own title going to be ever-POV Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per JoeSmack above, the topic itself is NPOV and any struggle to maintain it will run into that underlying problem. -Markeer 16:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Sure, a lot of the entries are NPOV, but remember, the article is articles that have consistently appeared on top lists. These are just albums that are critically acclaimed, and the article should be kept as a quick reference to people that wish to find out what albums have appeared on top lists. BurningZeppelin 09:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment How is 'consistently' defined in this context? How are these 'top lists' chosen?  Does a 'top list' from a Japanese magazine get equal weight with an American one?  (Certainly not as the article is severely biased towards the West, America in particular).  All these questions point out valid problems with the article, this combined with everyone elses arguments points to deletion.  --The Way 17:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. "Considered by many", "often been described", "is regarded as"... weasel words, all of them. Wholly arbitrary, wholly unhelpful. 15:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not enough tildes. That last one was me. BTLizard 15:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep I don't see a reason, really. The article is severely biased towards the West, because the West because every album on the list is a rock album, and rock was created, developed, and pioneered in the west. I do agree that the article uses quite a few weasel words yeah, and maybe the genre-creating albums section should be cut, but I think once a good number of accolades are provided, and artists who site the albums as influences and all that, it should be kept. Instead of searching all over to find where to start with a decent music collection, readers can just quickly access this list, look at different genres and start to build their collection from there. It's very helpful. ClashingZeppelin 20:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Wikipedia isn't allmusic.com. I think helping the kids find good music is a poor reason for keep. It's POV, it's unsourced, it's biased, it is a fanboy MAGNET and it is unmanageable. I've been reverting changes on it for days from people who want their favoritest-bestest band to be up there without a cite in sight. excuse the pun. JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 05:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. You and the very similarly named BurningZeppelin up there wouldn't happen to be cousins would you? JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 05:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Not only is it severely biased towaords the west, the number of citations to Rolling Stone indicate that it is biased towards a particular conservative - one might say reactionary - view of western popular music. The suggestion that somebody would use a list in an encyclopaedia to start a music collection is somewhat risible, too. It implies that he or she would know nothing about music and had no opportunity of hearing any - in which case why would they want to start collecting it? BTLizard 09:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as a topic devoid of encyclopedic legitimacy. The Literate Engineer 04:18, 28 October 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.