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 delete, noting also the argument that the article is a COPYVIO. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply

List of songs considered the best (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Per WP:TOP100: recreations of "Top 100" or similar lists where the lists were curated based on creative criteria are unacceptable use of non-free content, and I don't believe that any of these publications are free to license in this manner. This article is nothing but a compilation of those lists; it's a giant WP:COPYVIO essentially. Other than that, other editors have identified WP:WORLDWIDE issues as the publications reproduced tend to be exclusively U.S.- and U.K.-based, and so "considered the best" is wildly inaccurate. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 18:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I started to !vote keep, because I thought I remembered this list being a list of single songs various publications considered the best. So it was puzzling to see a claim of copyvio as though citing what the publication's "best" song was constitutes "A complete or partial recreation [of the whole list]". Of course as soon as I looked at it again, I saw that it is, in fact, just a compilation of top lists. Beyond copyvio concerns, it's also not even an appropriately defined list. It's not a "list of songs considered the best", it's a "list of lists of songs considered the top 10 best by a handful of publications". If someone wanted to go blow it up to turn it into something closer to List of video games considered the best that would work. I'm still considering, but this comment is likely to turn into a delete !vote. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC) reply

That list of video games article is subject to much the same problem. It's the very definition of original research and synthesis of sources. We've taken a few dozen qualitatively-ranked lists by various publications, set our own criteria and filtered the results into a quantitative ranking of "best" games. If this was someone's homework in a stats class they might get a decent mark on it, but it's not the sort of thing that an encyclopedia should be doing. A big red flag is a list requiring a detailed "methodology" section. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 16:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Aside from the issues cited by the nom, this is way too broad a topic, as there are many, many genres (most of which aren't covered). Clarityfiend ( talk) 03:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete as a POV fork, and also per Ivanvector's comments. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 17:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete: the methodology used to determine "the best" is totally flawed... we have an arbitary and incomplete selection of polls used as sources, nearly all are US or UK-based, the poll sample sizes are different and no attempt has been made to weight the samples, the time frames for each poll vary throughout, and there are far more standard pop/rock polls than any other genre of music, which obviously is going to lead to bias towards certain songs. We have absolutely no means of addressing any of these major flaws in methodology, so all of this leads to a "result" which is meaningless. Richard3120 ( talk) 21:24, 20 January 2016 (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.