Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pitchfork 500


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 15:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The Pitchfork 500

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Per the edit history of The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time, just displaying 500 songs is trivial. Since there is no outside commentary presented for the notability of this book/list, it's deletable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete as I understand it, this is a copyvio because its a reprint of someones opinion, not a ranking built on verifiable facts. Some possibly reliable sources do appear to come up in GNews. OSbornarfcontribs. 16:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed the full list and "Statistics" section from the article. As the article stands it does not meet WP:GNG. OSbornarfcontribs. 03:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC) struck OSbornarfcontribs. 05:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep it and fix it. This is a notable work, notable enough to have been featured in TIME and dozens of other reliable sources.  Add content from these sources in lieu of the complete list. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The complete list of 500 has been rightfully removed, and as for the book itself, it meets WP:NBOOKS (criterion #1) and WP:GNG as the article now demonstrates that coverage exists in multiple independent, reliable sources.  Gongshow  Talk 05:16, 1 February 2012 (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.