Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs in English labeled the worst ever (4th 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. The article was already nominated for deletion several weeks ago, but the previous result was no consensus with a suggestion to nominate again in several weeks. No new arguments have been raised or agreed upon in this debate. A major concern (voiced repeatedly in these AfDs) has been the subjectivity of this list. I'd second Samuel Blanning in encouraging anyone with concerns about the validity of a single listing to be bold and remove it themselves. alphaChimp ^laudare 20:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs in English labeled the worst ever (4th nomination)

NPOV, non-encyclopedic, unweildy listcruft, lol, internet. –127.0.0.1 (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, certainly not beautiful in its current form, but it has the potential of evolving into something like Films considered the worst ever, which actually is decent article. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has been nominated several times before:
- 21 November 2005: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs that have been considered among the worst ever, result Keep
- 17 December 2005: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs in English labeled the worst ever, result Keep
  - I know, and I don't know how it got through. –127.0.0.1 (talk) 09:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, every statement is verifiable and notable. If it isn't remove that particular statement. - Peregrinefisher 09:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the above reasons... besides, it would just get created again. --Caleby 13:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Article has too great potential for unverified abuse. Already the article has an NPOV tag and eight "citation needed" tags. "Worst ever" is too subjective a criteria. Worst by who's criteria? Can I start a 'blog, complain about how I hate such-and-such-a-song, and then cite that as a source here? This category is far too prone to WP:NPOV and WP:OR abuses. This subject is inherently non-encyclopedic. An encyclopedia should not have to post a disclaimer above articles saying, "Taste and judgment are subjective." Our role is to be objective, not subjective. This article claims itself subjective twice in the first paragraph. Scorpiondollprincess 14:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it IS possible to make a good article out of this, and it's been kept every time it's been nominated before. Whoever said "if at first you don't succeed, try and try again" wasn't talking about AFDing articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this isn't an encyclopedic topic. "Worst ever" in this context is not measurable, it's just some random opinions. For a song to be labelled the worst ever, surely it should have the least number of sales, the most complaints to stations etc and not just be because someone decided that they didn't like it. MLA 15:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This is the 4th nomination for this article, the most recent having closed just a few weeks ago - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs in English labeled the worst ever (3rd nomination). The nom brings no new arguments to the table to justify such a rapid renom. There is nothing subjective here: the topic is valid and sourced to major news outlets and authorities such as Blender, BBC or VH1. The article is also very well maintained. We should not have to debate the same points over and over. --JJay 16:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per JJay. Revisit in 6 months if there are any significant changes. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 17:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong speedy keep per being kept with a strong consensus less than a month ago. If this were not a WP:SK candidate, I would still vote keep, as I did a few weeks back. -- Kicking222 18:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, it was kept with no consensus Lurker ^talk 14:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per the last 3 times this was nominated. I also recommend cleaning up citations on this article to help prevent it from being nominated for deletion over and over again. Amazinglarry 18:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Oh come on. Notable topic and extreme abuse of the system. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per JJay even though I personally wouldn't put Achy Breaky Heart on the list. SliceNYC 19:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural speedy keep. It hasn't been long enough since the most recent AfD. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 19:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-sourced. Monitor to make sure that new entries without source citations get {{citation needed}} tags and ultimately are removed unless sourced. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, speedy, speedy keep. Come back when there's a new argument. Also, please note WP:NPOV: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves." Penelope D 01:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep, per above - but this article didn't take long to go from a generally sensible and contrite post-AfD "let's try & stick to the top five in the Worst lists only"-type "NPOV lip service", to a free-for-all policy of "any old mention will do, 41st in some old list or other is surely 'bad' enough to be called 'the worst', yeah?"... So if it's back here 6 months from now in the predicted appalling state, I will be tending towards Delete I'm afraid... --DaveG12345 22:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - The article definitely needs work and should take the form of Films considered the worst ever. --Happylobster 15:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. I'm too sexy for this AFD, too sexy for this AFD... Stev0 08:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The article is pure crap and I will see it gone someday, but it has just survived an AfD so it shouldn't be here at this moment Lurker ^talk 14:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Destroy Marminnetje 05:05, 4 August 2006 (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.