Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time


 * 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. John254 00:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time


(View AfD) (View log)

See also: Articles for deletion/Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamaliel (talk • contribs) 17:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The articles are a magnet for POV, OR and vandalism, and mostly consist of a top 10 list and a hunk of unsourced trivia and analysis. As well, there are no sources that prove their significance. There was a similar article for the 100 Greatest Guitarists that was deleted roughly a year ago. The AFD can be found for that here. At the very least, the pages should be merged into the Rolling Stone article. Scorpion0422 20:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would advocate keeping these, I'm afraid. Yes, they are a maintenance nightmare but the Rolling Stone all-time 500 blah is very widely discussed as a benchmark, at least where its upper echelons are concerned.  It was, of course, a seasonal space-filler, but it has garnered a lot of independent attention. The guitarists list was not, I think ,quite the same - it was essentially a repeat of the list, wasn't it?  Which would violate copyright.  These seem to make at least an attempt to talk about the articles, their compilation and critical reaction rather than simply republishing them. So it seems to me, anyway.  Cruftbane 21:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources that prove that these articles are discussed as benchmarks? Besides, Rolling Stone has done many articles that have garnered widespread discussion, do all of them deserve their own page? I think a mention in the Rolling Stone article and perhaps a section called "Rolling Stone lists" is more than enough. -- Scorpion0422 21:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Some relevant discussion can be found on my talk page. Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time isn't just an off the cuff list that you see printed every few months, it was a one off special edition, and released as a hardback edition.  It is still in print, whereas magazine back issues quickly disappear. - hahnch e n 22:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * keep - if it were a reproduction of the list (as I expected before I clicked on it) it'd be a no-brainer delete, but this is actually a pretty good article about the list that avoids any copyvio problems. Artw 23:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wha? There are no sources whatsoever, little information about real world context, and most of it is analysis. Am I missing something here? -- Scorpion0422 00:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, largely per Artw. There's some sourcing issues, but they can be addressed.  Rolling Stone is something of an authority on music, and when they do lists of this scope, it's significant.  --UsaSatsui 03:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hahnchen and Artw. Vandalism issues are a reason to place the article on your watchlist and patrol it, but they are not a valid reason to delete. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 16:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What about lack of notability and a lack of sources that prove notability? Isn't that a reason to delete? -- Scorpion0422 17:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A widely discussed list by a major music publication, which sparked both a hardback book containing the list and a collection of essays by major critics in response to the list, seems notable enough for me. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, notable since this list was published as a book and since the Kill Yr Idols book was written as a response to the list. 96T 17:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This article continues to be referenced, discussed and debated nearly 4 years after it was written. Very notable. -- En dl ess Dan  20:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep many references. do some due diligence. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Maybe some sort of limited editing or something, since the article basically doesn't need editing and is an open door for vandalism, but the article should definitely stay.--Mariogc 23:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep -- It's a valuable source for a major magazine's music review special and shows trends throughout decades, among bands, etc. Marty Donakowski 04:21, 13 October 2007 (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.