Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of VH1's 100 Greatest Songs from the Past 25 Years

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 of the debate was close early with no result because it needs to be handled as a copyright problem instead. --Michael Snow 06:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of VH1's 100 Greatest Songs from the Past 25 Years[edit]

Original research and subjective POV. Doesn't cite (if) it came from an official list or not. Last Avenue 00:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, like The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's 500 Songs that Shaped Rock and Roll. Song lists from notable sources are inherently NPOV and not original research. Kappa 00:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The number of music TV/Radio/magazine's top 100/50/10 lists of songs could be vast. I'd like to see some sign that this one isn't just another. Is is authoritative, widely cited, referred to, talked about, or controversial? If not, it's just listcruft. I'll come back and vote one way or the other when I'm sober. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 00:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It's popular among the younger crouds, but I'd worry regarding copyright issues. —This user has left wikipedia 00:31 2006-02-02
~~Keep~~ It can be an article about that list as much as being a list if lists bother people. This is more marginal of an example, I could see this in an Almanac. (I think the horror people have at lists is intense enough that maybe there should just be a Wiki-Almanac where lists can be banished to)--T. Anthony 04:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain I hadn't consider copyvio issues. If it's a copyright violation it probably should be removed. I asked about the Vatican Film List I created once, that isn't copyvio is it?--T. Anthony 04:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable list with no explanation of the list. Hdstubbs 04:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given VH1's credentials as a music television station. Capitalistroadster 04:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While Hdstubbs makes a good argument for deleting it, Kappa makes a better one for keeping it. Royboycrashfan 05:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list doesn't come out that often and VH1 is well recognizable. Calwatch 05:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because as NN and listcruft. (Signed: J.Smith) 05:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN list. Arbustoo 06:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. VH1 is a very notable music television channel and has put together several of these "Greatest" lists. There is already 100 Greatest Songs of Rock 'N' Roll as well two other VH1 lists in 40 Most Awesomely Bad No. 1 Songs and List of VH1's 40 Most Awesomely Bad Breakup Songs. There is also the Rolling Stone series and the Blender magazine series. Keep as per precedent -- Ianblair23 (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as VH1 is notable. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 11:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike Maxim's, VH1's focus is music. (OK, its ostensible focus is music, its real focus is silly reality shows and E!-style celebrity worship and gossip, but we'll ignore that.) StarryEyes 15:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are hundreds of these lists and, while VH1 is music-centered, it's far from authoritative, and not extremely notable compared to its peers; it's just one more commercial medium with its own POV and self-interest. The Rock'n'Roll Hall of Fame's list, by comparison, comes from a NPOV and authoritative non-commercial source and attempts to describe long-term influence that shaped the field. This list is less encyclopedic in both scope and source. Most such lists are listcruft, and I don't think this one rises above the bar. Barno 16:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When some random media outlet puts out a list of the top x of y, that doesn't make it encyclopaedic. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, as mentioned above, is a different story. VH1 is not the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Lord Bob 17:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is just another of endless numbers of 'Foo magazine's list of 100 best Blah' type lists ::Supergolden:: 17:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kappa Raggaga 17:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Barno. ←Hob 21:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kappa. There are plenty of articles like this e.g. all ten of the articles listed at AFI 100 Years series. NoIdeaNick 22:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft, non-authoritative source. Makemi 23:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable pop-culture reference for 2003. --AlexWCovington (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Destroy as Copyvio. Lists of items derived solely through editorial opinion (as opposed to polls, statistics, and other fact-based processes) fall within the guidelines of Eckes v. Card Prices Update and are subject to copyright protection under US law. Reproducing the entirety of such a list merely for the purposes of copying it into Wikipedia is a copyright violation and should not be allowed to stand. Dragons flight 01:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason that those Newsweek lists of colleges were deleted a while back. Per Dragons flight, this basically amounts to stealing their list. —Cleared as filed. 05:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatent copyvio ➥the Epopt 05:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - copyvio. Guettarda 07:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copyvio. There could probably be an article about "lists of the greatest foo of bar" with external links to listings. I mean really, these sorts of lists seem to become a rather iconic character of Western pop culture. older ≠ wiser 14:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. I think an article about this stuff would be acceptable (though I think a single article about VH1's lists of ... would be far superior. They are in themselves an interesting pop culture phenomenon. Guettarda 17:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as possible copyvio, and Wikipedia is not a VH1 mirror. Stifle 16:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio. --Carnildo 20:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio per Eckes v. Card Prices Update. Simply reproducing the list is copyright infringement; however, an article could surely be made about the list and events associated with it. Wikiacc (¶ | ∞) 22:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The World’s 10 Worst Dictators. The fact that some source makes a list of the best or worst or whatever makes it encyclopedic. Here the source is VH1, which knows something about music, and the Dictator's list is by David Wallenchinsky who knows something about making pithy little lists, packaging them and getting published. So what? Should we take a concordance and list God's favorite words? Carlossuarez46 22:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio. - ddlamb 05:09, 4 February 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.