Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top 500 Rock n' Roll Songs

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. --Rhobite 21:36, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Top 500 Rock n' Roll Songs[edit]

This list is a mess and unencyclopedic anyway. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Article does not establish that this is a notable list. This is a notable list, for example. Gamaliel 03:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Isn't this a clear copyright violation? It's just copy pasted from here Preisler 04:12, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Under Feist v. Rural, I don't think you can copyright a simple list of songs. Gamaliel 04:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • This isn't just a simple list of songs, it's one source's own critical desicison as to the best 500 songs of all time. That makes it a copyright violation. If it were a neutral listing of the 500 biggest-selling songs of all time, then it would not be a copyright violation. Delete RickK 21:19, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. This is pretty embarrasing since IAALS but American copyright is not exactly covered in Danish law school. Removing my copyvio warning Preisler 04:28, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Don't quote me on this, all I know about this is what I read on Wikipedia. ;) Gamaliel 05:42, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • This is a clearly different case to Feist v. Rural - I believe that this is copyrightable as a collection of information. In Feist v. Rural, the names and addresses of telephone subscribers were a simple matter of fact. This is someone's opinion on what are the 500 Greatest Rock 'n Roll Songs, and I believe as such is copyrightable. "Information [...] cannot contain any of the "expressive" content added by the source author. That includes not only the author's own comments, but also his choice of which facts to cover, [...] his order of presentation (unless it is something obvious like an alphabetical list), any evaluations he may have made about the quality of various pieces of information, or anything else that might be considered "original creative work" of the author rather than mere facts." - the Feist_v._Rural page. I believe that under this, this page is copyrightable and therefore a copyright violation. Oh, and delete whether we decide it's copyright or not :-) TSP 11:20, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete regardless. It's going to be POV no matter the source. – flamurai (t) 04:14, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don;t think you can copyright a list like this, but since it doesn't agree with what I think the top 500 rock 'n' roll songs are it's clearly just plain wrong. Delete. -R. fiend 04:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable list. Jayjg (talk) 04:41, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV list, does not establish notability. Megan1967 04:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I made the list more readable though. --Tezeti 05:00, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it: I'm for the article. I was the one that put it there and I think it should stay. I wasn't sure that it would be considered an article by the wikipedia community. I think it should stay.--Rentastrawberry 05:35, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Of course you would want it to stay. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inherently POV. Carrp | Talk 05:55, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just only using one list for that article is POV. Why does it have to be about.com's list and not from somebody else? Zzyzx11 06:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete under this name. Rolling Stone has just published a list of its greatest 500 songs and it is a common radio statio feature. There have been two run in Canberra in the past year. We would need to be convinced that About.com has a special status in determining such things and it should be described in the total. Capitalistroadster 10:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as inherently POV. What might be a good alternative article, though, would be a list of songs considered the greatest of all time (with verifiable sources for each one), similar to our List of movies that have been considered the greatest ever Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:44, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete since this is just a list copied from a book. Other Top 100/Top 500 lists exist and feature different songs. I'm not against the concept of such an article, however it needs to come from a more "scientific" source such as Billboard which bases its list upon imperical evidence such as sales or airplay. 23skidoo 15:42, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete because they gave Bruce Springsteen a better rank than Blue Öyster Cult. Ha ha, only serious. Delete it because it's a POV magnet, a list, and a probable copyvio. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:35, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-authorative list. What Billboard or Rolling Stone mags consider the top-500, maybe, but about.com? I don't think so. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's 500 Songs that Shaped Rock and Roll seems to cover the topic sufficiently. Niteowlneils 18:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Maybe redir to reduce the chances of going thru this again? Niteowlneils 18:37, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete inherently POV list. Fire Star 20:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Top_500_Rock_n%27_Roll_Songs&oldid=1080267102"