Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albums considered the greatest ever (2nd 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 was keep. A move discussion on the talk page may be warranted. -Scottywong | comment _ 16:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Albums considered the greatest ever

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely subjective inclusion criteria, fails WP:Source list. Note that this article is essentially a new version of Albums that have been considered the greatest ever, which was moved and later deleted at AfD. Tgeairn (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It's not completely subjective - it's a list of albums that have been selected as the best of all time by a notable publication. That seems a clear criterion. The information belongs on Wikipedia because it's mentioned in the entries on many of these albums, the only question is whether we need an index article to this info. If it was restricted to best album lists that were discussed in secondary sources[1][2][3][4][5][6], or those in lists which have Wikipedia articles (e.g. The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time, All Time Top 1000 Albums), would that satisfy notability guidelines? It's illogical to mention in an article that an album is number one in a list, but not have a list that indexes to that article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Of course this is subjective. Who decides what lists are pertinent for inclusion criteria? Who weights the lists against one another? How come some lists from some "notable publications" are included and not others? The ten selections here cherrypick from some lists, haphazardly. This is a classic example of WP:SYNTH. Ravenswing 11:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the validity of this argument. If you would like to add an well-sourced entry, there's nothing stopping you. — goethean ॐ 12:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(neutral) I'd like to point out that we do have Seven Wonders of the World and that ranking albums is something that is debated in notable publications. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 14:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: To answer the two comments above: Which makes the list indiscriminate into the bargain. What constitues a "well-sourced entry" here? My hometown newspaper has been deemed a reliable source. Would its Top Twenty All-Time Albums count?
As far as the Seven Wonders go, that is a well-acknowledged list going back centuries; its provenance is not in dispute, nor are the particular wonders in question. Beyond that, that ranking albums is discussed in notable publications is irrelevant; what makes this particular synthesis notable, and why would it be any more notable than if I replaced the list with one of my own liking, citing the Top Album lists which I claimed buttressed my choices? Ravenswing 15:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a source is considered reliable about the subject, and if it makes a claim about an album being the "greatest ever", it can be listed in the article. This seems like standard procedure. The NYT would be considered a better source than a heretofore unknown paper, but that doesn't make this article different from any other article. And I don't think that the list of Sevens Wonders is closed to debate. — goethean ॐ 15:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment - In practice, including anything that is or can be reliably sourced would create an unbounded list subject only to editorial whim as to what gets included and what doesn't. If I pull out a stack of early 60s magazines I will find different albums for inclusion than if I use a current stack, and next year will bring a different set. For an example of editorial selection, see this conversation on the article talk page. --Tgeairn (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it seems that this makes this article just like lots of other articles, where the determination of better and worse sources is determined by consensus on the talk page. It seems to me that there has not been much interest or discussion/debate on the talk page, which arguably may have resulted in a somewhat arbitrary list. But, as with other articles, the remedy for that is article improvement, not deletion. — goethean ॐ 19:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep Although my knee-jerk reaction was initially delete when I read the title, I see that this entry is really a variety of a "List of lists" type of article, which is acceptable per the guidelines. It needs clean-up, it REALLY needs a new title. I don't feel that it's SYNTH or OR, because I see no novel conclusions being made, except one. It appears that the albums are ranked based on some sort of weighting within the lists. The albums would have to be ordered based on release date or something. We know which lists are notable, since they're the ones on Wikipedia... but that doesn't leave many lists, which is a problem. Roodog2k (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Roodog2k: "...I see that this entry is really a variety of a "List of lists" type of article, which is acceptable per the guidelines...." — goethean ॐ 19:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of lists is fine. Topic is encyclopedic. Greglocock (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is sourced (not greatly, but it is), and as Greglocock said, the topic is encyclopedic. I suggest moving to List of albums considered the greatest, similar to List of films considered the best and List of films considered the worst. Statυs (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.