Open main menu

Talk:List of music considered the worst/Archive 5

Does this article pass WP:LISTN?

I can't help but wonder whether this topic passes WP:LISTN. According to WP:LISTN, a list article "is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources."(emphasis mine). Are there reliable sources which have published similar lists of worst music? And are there enough of such lists to establish notability? If not, should the article be deleted? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Dude, some people don't like Sgt. Pepper. WP:DROPTHESTICK. Micky Moats (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
You comment in every opportunity to mention Sgt. Pepper, and how it should be in this list. This is not to be followed as WP:BIAS. If you have a problem with the album or the band, it should not be reflected in this article. The fact that the album remains in this article baffles me. WP:WEIGHT is enough to prove that the album shouldn't be included. Because of this, this acts as a precedent for Wikipedia, and anyone could add anything to any article, with low quality sources. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 17:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, again, I'm asking if it follows WP:LISTN and this can be demonstrated by citing reliable sources which also publish lists of worst music. So far, all I'm getting is crickets. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Trying doing the smallest bit of research yourself then. The top of this very talk page you’re already on shows that this article has survived 6 AFD discussions, including an extensive one this year. Please don’t go the same route so many other misguided editors do when they get upset about an entry being on the list and decide to try to blow the entire list instead. Thats not the right path here. Sergecross73 msg me 17:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I might be the first editor who noticed that the article may not pass WP:LISTN. If WP:LISTN wasn't brought up in the past AfDs, then they are meaningless in regards to meeting WP:LISTN. I'll give it a week or so. If nobody can prove it meets WP:LISTN, I'll nominate it for deletion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
And I’ll be the first one there, suggesting it be thrown out per WP:POINT, WP:STICK, and WP:IDHT. Another discussion would be a waste of the community’s time. There’s no reason for a seventh debate when there was a strong consensus less than 2 months ago. Additionally, if you read the 2019 AFD, you’ll see there’s a list of similar media list articles that are kept time and time again as well. (Film, video games, etc) Trust me, you’re not the first person to have these thoughts. But there’s an overwhelming precedent that these sorts of article need cleanup, not deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 22:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
And I will be the first one there, citing WP:WEIGHT and WP:BIAS. Any one I have mentioned that Sgt. Pepper's is in this article, they don't believe me, and when they see it, they say that's why Wikipedia's unreliable. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 16:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Neither/none of that constitutes a valid article deletion rationale. Those are cleanup rationales. So you’d likely inadvertently help move the hypothetical AFD towards yet another “keep and cleanup” close. Thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
and how exactly would you suggest cleaning it up? (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Creating inclusion criteria through a consensus created through discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 01:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Sergecross73 Instead of whining about it, you should just answer the question. The silence is deafening. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The community is already pretty convinced of its notability, and it’s pretty well-documented, so I recommend you catch yourself up. You don’t need my help here, really. Sergecross73 msg me 15:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
No problem. Like I said, I'll give it a few more days before nominating it for deletion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
On what grounds exactly? Is your premise that lists of worst music aren’t published by reliable sources? Are you...serious? Sergecross73 msg me 17:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
It's more of a WP:POINT nomination, sprinkled with WP:OWN and WP:STICK. The "let's remove Sgt. Pepper" RFC went awry, so the entire article now has to go. Preposterous. Micky Moats (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh I completely agree. I was just curious to go a little beyond what he’s stated. He can keep regurgitating LISTN, but I wanted some clarification on his thoughts on how exactly it fails LISTN beyond the fact that he hasn’t persuaded anyone to do the legwork for him. What’s the premise here? That the cross-section of “music” and “quality” doesn’t occur in RS lists? It’s preposterous. Published RS best/worst lists run rampant on the internet and magazines. And whether or not editors specifically cited it, the sentiment of it being a notable crossection certainly has been discussed at previous AFDs. Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
"On what grounds exactly?" Did you even bother reading my original post? Or the section title, for that matter? It's amazing how many times you've posted in this thread while repeatedly avoiding the topic at hand. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Er, maybe you’re not following me? I’m asking, do you have any reason to believe that LISTN satisfying sources don’t exist other than the fact that no ones done searching for you and presented them to you? Sergecross73 msg me 19:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok see this loads of folks have lists like this. game. set. match. someone close this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Sergecross? The RFC is a walking corpse by now, is it not? Micky Moats (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Cas Liber - Yeah, that’s pretty much why A Quest’s argument generally doesn’t pick up any traction at AFD. None of this is new really, I’ve been through this at a number list articles I maintain. Someone gets upset about an entry on the list. They don’t get their way, so they get more upset and try to delete it. And that fails too, because the deletion rationale isn’t well thought out because it’s more about getting their way about the entry than the list itself.
Micky Moats - Yeah, it’s slowed down, but RFCs generally run 30 days unless it’s a complete blowout. The consensus looks relatively clear, but I wouldn’t call it a landslide or anything, so it should probably run its full course. Sergecross73 msg me 16:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Casliber: You One might be able to make an argument for a list of albums, but this article isn't a list of albums. We'll have to remove any entry that isn't an album.
There's also another problem with this article. In order to be on this list, you only need a single source claiming a piece of music is worst - regardless of whether there is any consensus among academic sources. In other words, the article is presenting WP:FRINGE opinions as mainstream viewpoints. This is a violation of WP:NPOV. If we removed all the non-albums from the list and only listed albums where there is consensus among reliable sources, would there be any entries left in this article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
It'd have to be a single reliable source. And there is a difference between a person saying "I don't like it" and them explaining why a particular piece of music or album is one of the worst. Why are you putting words in my mouth about albums? I never said anything about albums. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Casliber: You misunderstood my comment. I changed the wording to be more clear. In any case, both points remain valid. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Again, there’s no way you’re going to convince people that the extremely common cross-sections of “music” and “poor quality” isn’t covered by reliable sources. This feels like some bizarre combination of WP:GAMING and WP:WIKILAWYERING (with a pinch of WP:POINT mixed in.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Sergecross73 I'm sorry that you feel that following Wikipedia policies is WP:GAMING and WP:WIKILAWYERING. The reality is that WP:NPOV is non-negotiable. By presenting WP:FRINGE viewpoints in this article as though they are mainstream, we are violating WP:NPOV. If you disagree, you should come up with a valid, policy-based argument. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that Melody Maker was a fringe music publication. Indeed, it was one of the oldest continuously published works of music journalism on the planet, and it is the very definition of a mainstream source. Minority viewpoints are given due coverage so long as they are also covered by mainstream sources. Melody Maker was as mainstream as you can get. This article does not say that Sgt. Peppers was the worst album ever, it says that at one point, a poll in Melody Maker named it as such. It provides the exact, proper, and due context for such a statement. No, it isn't the only opinion on the album, neither is it the majority opinion on it, but it is a notable opinion insofar as it was well covered by a major, mainstream source. --Jayron32 16:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Jayron3 I didn't say that Melody Maker is a fringe music publication. What I said was that if it was the only source which identified a particular piece of music as the worst, it's a WP:FRINGE opinion. WP:NPOV requires that we look at the totality of reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but this list does not say "this is the list of the worst music". You keep building your own windmills to tilt at. This says, in a nutshell, that this is a list of works that reliable sources have named as the worst of all time. A broad spectrum poll of critics, journalists and artists in a top-level music criticism journal meets that criteria in spades. --Jayron32 18:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
@A Quest For Knowledge: haven't you got something better to do? Really? Of all the battles to fight, all the misinformation on medical and political articles or whatevere and you're arguing for this one in the face of everything? A notable source saying X is not fringe - we;re not talking about homeopathy or reiki or some other woo. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
i had no idea so many administrators were against the improvement of wikipedia. while "Sgt Pepper is the worst album ever" may not be the literal definition of a fringe theory like Flat Earth, it is a viewpoint held by an extremely small minority. will someone please explain why a minuscule number of people calling a widely regarded album the worst warrants its inclusion among albums widely regarded as being the worst (something by the way that does not happen in similar "considered worst" lists such as Films and Books)? also, since said admins are putting so much emphasis on "notable sources" as a counter argument for it being an opinion held by a tiny number of people, why haven't they gone through and culled the sources that do not adhere to the articles topic of it being music considered the "worst"? or has the standard for inclusion been lowered from at least two people calling it the "worst" to at least two people (such as LA Times music critic Robert Hilburn and John Lennon biographer Albert Goldman) calling it "mostly mediocre"? 2600:1700:B280:B1C0:DD31:25B1:DEBE:39E9 (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Enough of this ridiculous gaslighting about “admins not wanting to improve Wikipedia”. You’re free to disagree with people stances, but enough with the theatrics. Get to the point and discuss the issue, not all this other nonsense. Sergecross73 msg me 00:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
excuse me, but when an admin literally calls out a registered editor for trying to make an article adhere WP:NPOV, one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, by insinuating they are wasting their time, that is something that should not be overlooked. furthermore, it should be noted that once again someone brought up Sgt Pepper's inclusion (and by extension the entire article) goes against WP:NPOV, yet still no one has refuted or even attempted to refute that. they've argued what is and isn't a "reliable source" or whether or not someone is WP:WIKILAWYERING, but not that the people who consider it the worst album ever are an extremely small minority or that its inclusion misrepresents the common view of the album by critics and the general public. i would also like to note that while edits adding unrelated negative reviews that fall outside the scope of the articles (such as Hilburn and Goldman calling the album mostly "mediocre" instead of the "worst" ever), edits clarifying the wider held view of the album were removed (when they could've been improved) [1]. 2600:1700:B280:B1C0:BCE2:3527:D0E9:5DE2 (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
@Casliber: No, actually, I don't have anything better to do. In any case, if we actually only list music where there is mainstream agreement about it being the worst, how many items would be left in the list? Friday (Rebecca Black song)? Wow, a list with one entry. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
The fact that this debate around SPLHCB seems to have been going on forever suggests this entire article is not really suitable for an encyclopaedia. It's too reliant on personal opinion and referencing others personal opinions. Lists of 'worst movies' and 'worst video games' at least have some concrete reasons for poor reception (shoddy production values/poor programming), with music, things are more complex and down to personal taste. If the article is going to remain , maybe Pepper and some of the other controversial additions (such as 'Chinese Democracy') need to be put in a separate section86.138.200.114 (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC).
No, the fact that this article has survived 6 deletion discussions, including one in 2019, suggests that this is petty nonsense, equivalent to the “well if I can’t get my way, I’ll just destroy the whole thing” mentality. Sergecross73 msg me 14:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
its survived 6 deletion discussions based purely on number of votes accompanied by weak arguments. look at the last discussion [2]. you yourself voted in it, and voted Keep based on the even, levelheaded, policy-driven argument of "1) It's survived past deletion discussions, 2) The video game one survived past deletion discussion, 3) The movie one survived past deletion discussions, ". so since no article should ever be deleted if it survives 1 AFD discussion, lets look at the first one [3]. why was it nominated for deletion way back when in 2005: a weak threshold for inclusion; it doesn't adhere to to WP:NPOV. nearly fourteen years later, it still has a weak threshold for inclusion and continues to fail WP:NPOV. now lets look at the votes: we got a "Keep, of course", "'Keep, its true", "Keep, it makes the internet not suck", "Keep, i like the comment about how 'it makes the internet not suck'", and a lot that boil down to "Keep, WP:OTHERSTUFF" and "Keep, but clean up". now the last two arguments are also arguments you brought up repeatedly in the last AFD, which is kind of funny. first, because this article should exist because stuff like List of films considered the worst exists, however this one shouldn't have to follow a rational, common sense approach that adheres to WP:NPOV like those others do. whereas those lists are made up of entries widely considered by critics and the public at large to be among the worst created in that particular medium, here is a list of stuff merely called the worst by at least a whopping two people regardless of the common interpretations of the creative work (which, for the umpteenth time, goes against WP:NPOV). second, in the last discussion you repeatedly say deletion is WP:NOTCLEANUP, and that editors should WP:SOFIXIT, except when people do try to fix it, like say clarifying the wider held view of an entry in accordance with WP:WEIGHT, you revert them [4]. if someone tries to add entries that should belong, they're reverted and told their rational is weak. if someone tries to remove an entry that shouldn't belong, they're reverted and told to get a consensus. however, as this discussion and the RfC above have clearly demonstrated, a number of editors do not want the article cleaned up, do not want the article improved, and do not want the article to adhere to Wikipedia policy, they merely want to to maintain the status quo, which is a flawed, messy article void of encyclopedic value. in 2005 people said don't delete it, clean it, and almost fourteen years later people are still saying the same thing, but no one will let them do it. get out of their way and let them actually WP:FIXIT. since one of the main arguments for keeping the article is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, start following the standards that other stuff follows. do not have this as a "List of music considered the worst (by at least two people)", because that fails WP:NPOV. make it a list of music widely considered the worst, the same way the film list is films widely considered the worst. begin with some common sense like if the common interpretations of an album or song is positive, it doesn't belong on the list regardless of whether 1 or 10 or 50 people personally hate it because "look at their mustaches" or "it ain't rock and roll to me" or "the people who consider it great probably think the Mona Lisa is great too". bring the article up to standard with the other stuff and make it adhere to Wikipedia policy, or get rid of it. and its funny that on several occasions you bring up WP:NOTCLEANUP for deletion, because if you click on "NOTCLEANUP" it leads to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and if you go back and re-read the past AFDs (the main basis of your argument of why this article shouldn't be deleted) a lot of the reasons used for "keep" votes appear on that page. (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Article talk pages don't decide notability or result in deletions, AFD does. That's the process. 5 AFDs have ended with a keep, and 1 with a no consensus. The one wasn't even 5 months ago. At some point, you have to stop beating the horse, he's already kept. -- ferret (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

IP, I suggest capitalization and proper punctuation. This is fairly hard to read coherently, especially with no paragraph breaks. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 21:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

they're called "periods". they look like little dots ("."). they denote the end of one sentence and it separate from the beginning of another. as for capitalization, my writing style depends on the formality the piece is due. actual Wikipedia article, formal, proper capitalization; Wikipedia talk page, informal, so screw it. its like how people would use something like "OMG" in a talk page, but not an article. for coherence, here is the gist, with proper capitalization and paragraphs just for you:
The basis of argument "This article shouldn't be deleted because it survived past deletion attempts" all rely upon the first Article for Deletion (AFD) discussion. In that discussion, it was nominated for deletion because an editor felt the article had insufficient inclusion criteria [1] and the article did not adhere to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. The result of the AFD was to "keep", and it was based largely on the arguments that similar articles, such as "List of films considered the worst", exist, and that the article should be cleaned up instead of deleted. That AFD took place in November 2005, and today, nearly fourteen years later, those issues still have not been corrected. This article still has insufficient inclusion criteria, it still does not adhere to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and editors are still arguing cleaning up the article is a better solution than deleting it.
However, the ones arguing for the article being cleaned up instead of deleted are actively preventing people from cleaning it up. As an example, in September 2018 an editor made an addition to the entry for The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album to clarify the wider held positive view of the album [2]. This edit was done in accordance to the "Due and Weight" subsection of Wikipedia's NPOV policy, which states, "In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." In spite of the edit conforming to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, it was promptly reverted by the chief proponent of editors calling for the article to be cleaned up instead of deleted. The reason stated for reverting the edit was this article is strictly for negative reviews, and should a reader wish to know the actual viewpoints held by critics and the general public for the entries in the list, he or she must go to each individual article and look up the information [3].
Upon further inspection of the article's edit history, it is shown that edits adding songs and/or albums generally considered to be among the worst ever created are reverted, with the justification being the additions are based upon weak reasoning. Likewise, edits removing songs and/or albums generally considered to not be among the worst ever created are reverted, with the justification being there was no consensus to have them removed. It is therefore argued by me that the individuals calling for the article to be cleaned up do not actually wish for the article to be cleaned up, but are using it as an attempt to maintain the status quo of the article and keep certain controversial entries on the list.
For nearly fourteen years this article has survived multiple AFD discussion and will, hypothetically, survive even more deletion discussion based largely on the fact it survived previous AFD discussions, but without ever addressing the issues raised in the original one. If this article, which many in the original discussion noted needs to be cleaned up, should ultimately be kept because similar articles exist, it should actually be cleaned up to meet the standards of those articles. For instance, "List of films considered the worst" is comprised of films widely considered to be among the worst ever made. As a standard, the entries are included based up the overall viewpoints of critics and the general public, not just the views of a tiny handful of people. This standard is shared by other "Considered the Worst" lists. This article, however, despite a nearly identical title and a similarly stated scope as those does not seek to maintain the same overall standard. Whereas those lists are made up of entries considered the worst based upon the overall view of the film, book, or video game, this list is made up of song and albums which have by called the worst by a minimum of two people, regardless of the commonly held wider opinion.
The easiest way to improve this article is to bring it up to the standard shared by those similar articles by cleaning it up and removing entries that clearly contrast Wikipedia's NPOV policy. The "Describing Aesthetic Opinions" subsection of Wikipedia's NPOV policy states, "Aesthetic opinions are diverse and subjective—we might not all agree about who the world's greatest soprano is. However, it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts and the general public...Articles should provide an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations to experts holding that interpretation." Songs and albums should not be included because a very small number of people consider them to be among the worst ever made, especially when the wider held view is they are among the very best ever created. To do so violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy and removes any encyclopedic value the article has, as it is merely a list of music hated by a couple of random individuals instead of a collection of songs and albums so poorly made they are widely considered among the worst ever created.
What this article presents itself to be is not what it actually is, and what it actually is is not notable. The editors calling for cleaning up the article instead of deleting it should allow people to actually do so. That way the article will conform with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, it will reflect what it purports to represent, and it will actually achieve the notability it claims. If not, those editors should stand down and let the article be deleted, because while a list of music widely considered to be the worst ever created is notable, a list of music hated by couple people is not.
As an aside at the end, I noted I found it comical the editor I was addressing frequently uses the arguments, "This article should be kept because it survived previous deletion attempts," as well as the Wikipedia shortcut "WP:NOTCLEANUP" as shorthand for cleaning up the article instead of deleting it. This is due to the fact the aforementioned shortcut leads to the Wikipedia essay "Arguments to Avoid in Deletion Discussions", and reasons used with a large number of the "Keep" votes in the previous AFD discussion appear in the essay. An example would be in the initial deletion discussion, one editor voting to "Keep" because, "I like the comment about how 'this helps the internet not suck.'" [4] Essentially the above editor is stating the article should remain based on past "Keep" votes while inadvertently providing reasoning for why those same votes should be ignored.
[1]. At the time of the nomination, there was no inclusion criteria.
okay there, laddie? (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I think their point was that "giant walls of text" are not an effective way of persuading people. It's a good way to lose people's interest. Come on man, there's got to be a more concise way of conveying your ideas... Sergecross73 msg me 01:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm certainly not reading all of that. -- ferret (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, we wouldn't want reading on Wikipedia. 2600:1700:B280:B1C0:D0EA:5E57:CB9:9807 (talk) 06:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
For the benefit of all, a TL;DR: Many people argue that this article is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia, for the sole reason that it has already passed AfD. However, this argument fails to consider that not only was Wikipedia different in 2005, but the close of the AfD (which was closed as "keep", shockingly) specifically stated that cleanup was necessary in order to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:DUEWEIGHT. The article still has not been cleaned up, mostly because some editors (often the ones calling the loudest for cleanup) revert any changes to the article (in one case explicitly stating "this article doesn't cover positive reception"), in an attempt to maintain the status quo.
Many articles of a similar basis to this (for example, List of films considered the worst), focus only on items generally known as bad. This article, while claiming to be of the same type, is instead an indiscriminate collection of albums and songs that two random people said were bad. If this article is to be kept, it must be brought up to the same level as the others.
The easiest way to fix the issues is to remove clear NPOV violations, in accordance with WP:SUBJECTIVE. By not removing such violations, this article is actively removing encyclopedic value from itself. The editors blocking any substantial changes to the article need to back off and either a) let the cleanup happen, or b) let it be deleted as a non-notable collection of mostly minority opinions.
(Disclaimer: my doing this is not establishing my agreement or disagreement.) -A lainsane (Channel 2) 02:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
100% agree. This article, if it remains, should be cleaned up. Delete the entries that obviously shouldn't appear here, like SPLHCB, because it has more positive than negative reception. But if someone tries to clean it up, it gets reverted. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 04:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
As the person who has watched over the article for the last few years, I can say: This is a shallow observation that doesn’t quite get to the heart of what’s going. I’m all for holding discussions on improving the article. But every time, interest fizzles out and we fall into stalemates, which dictates following WP:NOCONSENSUS. It’s the same cycle every time. Some Nickelback fanboy is outraged that such a successful band could be considered the worst, contacts Reddit or their social media of choice, etc. They make a bunch of invalid arguments about how awesome Nickelback is, the other side presents a bunch of reliable sources as a counterpoint, and the Nickelback fans storm off, outraged by the “injustices of Wikipedia”, etc. But that’s the problem. They only cared about “clearing the good name of Nickelback”. Once that’s done, they disappear. That’s the issue - there’s no sustained interest in neutrally maintaining the list. Once we get some people who are actually concerned with working on the list as a whole as their actual motivation for being here, then we’ll make some progress. Sergecross73 msg me 13:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Really. You compare this discussion with Nickleback fans coming here and presenting a "bunch of invalid arguments" of how that band shouldn't be here. When there are several sources [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] that name Sgt. Pepper's as one of the best albums of all time. Per WP:WEIGHT, since there are only a few critics that think this album is "overrated", it shouldn't appear on this list.
Let's say that your argument is, since those sources exist, it should appear nonetheless in this article. Well, guess what. I can find the same sources about any song or film. Let's see. I can find sources that say that The Godfather is overrated and bad. [10] [11] With your logic, I should put it in List of films considered the worst. But of course they won't let me. They'll cite WP:WEIGHT and tell me that a few sources don't surpass the great majority of critics. The same logic should be applied in this article.
Neither of those sources call The Godfather the worst, and one of them is not a major, mainstream publication noted for film criticism. --Jayron32 18:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
They call it overrated, the call it a negative influence, and they're just as valid as your sources for Pepper. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 19:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
The Melody Maker source calls Sgt. Pepper's the worst record ever. Your sources do not call The Godfather the worst movie ever. Furthermore, as I noted, not all randomly found sources in a google search are equivalent. Melody Maker was one of the top music criticism journals of its day, and Sabotage Times is some random blog you found. --Jayron32 19:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
To finish this up, you say that you are all in for improvement of this article. Yet when somebody says that Sgt. Pepper's should appear here, and they delete it, you reverse it. Even when they don't delete it, and just put a few words stating that the album was nonetheless well received, but still had a few critics, you revert it. Special:Diff/861099154 It seems to me that you want the album to appear on this list. Stating that you want the article improved, but delete every sight of "positive reception" about Sgt. Pepper's, seems hypocritical to me.
Also, don't come up with the argument that "if you want to see if the album had positive reception, check its article". WP:NEUTRAL states "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." You hate Sgt. Pepper's so much that you must include it in this list? Then say that it had positive reception as well. It's the neutral thing to do. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 16:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
You have completely missed the point of what I was saying. I was merely explaining why cleanup of the article has been slow - stalemates occur because there’s few people offering sustained participation in discussions of the articles overall scope; people just want to argue about their given entry and then leave. Nickelback, the Beatles, or any specific artist at all is completely irrelevant to the point being made. It’s a little more nuanced than your proposed “People revert out improvements” or whatever lazy rationalization you came up with in your comment just before the newest massive wall of text added. Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
If you want a break up to the stalemates to allow people to clean up the article, there's a simple way to do so: FOLLOW WIKIPEDIA POLICY. If an entry fails WP:NPOV, it needs be removed. If an edit is made to comply with WP:NPOV, do not revert it and tell them they need a consensus. You don't need to hold discussions dragging out for months. You don't need a vote to determine whether or not it falls within the catchall word "considered". If it fails WP:NPOV, it needs to removed, regardless of how many people want it should stay. Want to know how I know? I read the policy. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." 2600:1700:B280:B1C0:F9D8:738:A901:F251 (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for the insight. I hadn’t tried following the approach of “following policy”. Any other wisdom you’d like impart on me for future disputes and article writing? What’s your stance on “writing good” versus “writing bad”? Come on, get real, you can’t possibly be as naive as to believe things are that simple. That sort of (incorrect) application of NPOV would render reception sections entirely impossible to write at all. You need to slow down and calm down a bit. You seem to know how to regurgitate policy, but you don’t seem to understand it or be able to apply it correctly. Sergecross73 msg me 19:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Sergecross is right here. You don't win an argument just because you are the first person to link some random alphabet soup page. The existence of policy does not produce any forgone conclusion. There are often disputes, and when there are disputes, they are decided by consensus building discussions where people lay out their rationales for their own perspective on the applications of those policies. No one has violated any policy here, what is happening is there is a disagreement over the application of the policy. Repeating the policy or linking it without explaining why you think your version of the article is more in line with the policy doesn't mean much. What you need to do is to explain why your position is more in line with policy. Also, you should do so once. You don't get extra "consensus points" because you make the same point over and over. --Jayron32 19:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
WP:NPOV is not "some random alphabet soup page". Neutral Point of View is one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, one of the three Core Content Policies of Wikipedia, and is non-negotiable. But since this is in dispute, it will be taken somewhere where it can be resolved. 2600:1700:B280:B1C0:F9D8:738:A901:F251 (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
The way I see it is Wikipedia should include all viewpoints, and in the case of Pepper, yes many critics hate it and consider it overrated but if you look at its main article, it generally tends toward the representation as a masterpiece, which only includes some words from Richard Goldstein and Lester Bangs. The entry here includes the views of many others, which are not represented on the Pepper article. I can see where you're coming from on the Godfather argument about works being overrated and perhaps being hated by a minority. Let's take a random example of another album that has topped a poll of some kind. The Joshua Tree. Good record? Yup, we probably could both agree on that. But could you find personalities who have given appraisals to the effect of The Joshua Tree being "the low water point of rock 'n' roll;" "the worst thing that ever happened to music for a lot of reasons;" an "undistinguished collection of work;" a "stupendously over-rated and ultimately damaging" joke record, or something which "signalled the death of rock 'n' roll;" and "[having] the power to almost singlehandedly destroy rock and roll." There seems to be a common retrospective message here. Herostratus made a great point above, saying: "There's lots of ways to be bad, and having a doleful cultural effect is one of them." Nothing to do with The Beatles being incompetent, or the production quality being bad. However, if over the passage of time, several critics speak out over its lack of hooks, poor lyrical content and its impact on rock music then that should be highlighted here as there's very little mentioned on its main article.Noelrock (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia does include all relevant viewpoints, in accordance with its WP:NPOV policy. The reason the album's article leans more towards positive reviews than negative ones is because it is widely regarded as a good album (WP:NPOV#Describing Aesthetic Opinions: "[I]t is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts and the general public...Articles should provide an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations to experts holding that interpretation"). The reason the negative reviews are noted but not featured as prominently is because they are in the minority (WP:NPOV#Due and Undue Weight: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.")
As for this article, this is not the place to balance out opinions. This is not "List of music considered overrated" or "List of music considered bad", and even if it were you would still need the majority view of the album to be that it is overrated or bad. This is "List of music considered the worst", and the view that out of all the albums in history Sgt Pepper is the worst one ever created is not a minority view, it is an extremely small minority view and does not belong (WP:NPOV#Due and Undue Weight: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article"). This is not a list dedicated to minority or super minority opinions, so entries must not be based on minority or super minority opinions. Songs and albums should only be on this list if the common interpretation of them is so overwhelmingly negative it is generally considered to be among the worst ever created. 2600:1700:B280:B1C0:F9D8:738:A901:F251 (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
The strength of a viewpoint is not judged by counting the number of people who hold it (i.e. "majority" vs. "minority") but, especially on matters such as this, on the reputation and expertise of the people and organizations who have put forward the opinion. If we were talking restaurants, I would expect reviews in the Zagat and Michelin Guides to have more weight than "just some random article I found in a search". Likewise here, the issue with Sgt. Peppers is that it was not a random, cherry-picked opinion found and some random website on the Internet, it was a broadbased, highly-level music critics and experts poll conducted by a major music journalism outlet, Melody Maker. The opinion of that level of music criticism carries weight based on reputation and expertise, and is not subject to whims of someone cherry picking google searches for opinions like their own. Yes, it is one opinion, but it's an opinion that carries enough weight for inclusion on this one list. Reminder again, this list doesn't say that Sgt. Peppers actually is the worst, just that a sufficiently reliable, mainstream source has considered it so at some point. --Jayron32 19:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, there's a difference between "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" (what you accuse) and "Precedent" (what I cite.) OTHERSTUFF is picking something random and saying "well, since that currently exists in an article, its okay to to recreate elsewhere". It's not based on anything other than observation of existence. "Precedent" is very different. It is citing past consensus found through discussion. That's what I did. OTHERSTUFF would just be going "Well, there's a "list of worst films" article in existence, so we should keep this article too. That's not what I did though. What I did - provide 20+ examples where similar discussions lead to a consensus in favor of what I was arguing - is is a far stronger (and valid) argument. Sergecross73 msg me 00:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Way to completely miss the mark. Your "precedent" and my "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" are the same thing. The precedent set by those "Keep" results in the film and video games article AFDs is a strict adherence to WP:NPOV, which this article does not do. My pointing to those articles, the ones setting the precedent, is that they adhere to WP:NPOV, and this one does not. The only precedent set by this own article's previous AFD is that it needs to adhere to WP:NPOV, yet for fourteen years it has continued to fail to do so.
You want a more concise version of my point? THIS ARTICLE FAILS WP:NPOV. ALLOW THEM FIX IT OR LET THEM DELETE IT. 2600:1700:B280:B1C0:D0EA:5E57:CB9:9807 (talk) 06:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't mind reading giant walls of text. This has all been very enlightening.--Asher196 (talk) 10:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Referring to prior consensus is absolutely not the same as OSE violations. If you think otherwise, you’re flat out wrong, I don’t know how to be any more clear on that. Referring to previous and similar consensus is acceptable. It’s why they’re always prominently listed at AFDs, for example. And please stop writing in all caps, it just makes it it look like you’re yelling and throwing a tantrum. It won’t help your cause, it’ll just make people not take you seriously, and or start giving you WP:CIVIL warnings. Sergecross73 msg me 19:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
My use of all capitals is not meant to be uncivil. After ignoring the substance of both of my lengthy earlier posts, you said people don't want to read that much and asked for "a more concise way of conveying your ideas..." Well, the caps lock was my attempt to do so. Since it is apparently unrealistic to expect some to read responses longer than a few sentences, I needed something to grab their attention. And evidently it work, because it finally got a response about NPOV. It was not and is not meant to be uncivil, it is meant to get readers' attention due to normal avenues of discussion apparently failing. 2600:1700:B280:B1C0:F9D8:738:A901:F251 (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
So, to recap, massive walls of text weren’t convincing anyone, so you felt writing in all-caps was going to be a persuasive alternative? You...can’t be serious... Sergecross73 msg me 01:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
The first wall of text you apparently stopped reading after I mentioned you bringing up the film and video games AFDs, as that is literally the only thing you responded to [12]. No counter for the arguments the list fails NPOV, no rebuttal for the notion clean up of the article is being actively thwarted, and no response to you reverting an editor clarifying the wider positive reception of an album because "If people want the full scope of its reception, they’ll read its dedicated article." Just the small part at the beginning about WP:OTHERSTUFF. After another editor said capitalization and paragraphs would make it easier to read, the second "wall of text" was done, but it was with even less counter, with you stating, "Come on man, there's got to be a more concise way of conveying your ideas" [13]. Since one big long post is too much, and easy to digest paragraphs are not good enough, when it came to addressing your response, feeling that I didn't want someone to zone out midway though a few sentences, and fearing that the main argument would once again be overlooked or ignored, I put it in caps lock. In retrospect I could have done something different like put it bold, or changed the color, or put a bunch of these around it:  , but I went with the caps lock in an effort to get a response, and after two months it finally did. 2600:1700:B280:B1C0:6972:38FD:873:AD4 (talk) 04:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

To the editors who keep saying that the article surviving past AfDs, can one of you please point to the specific AfDs where the fact that the article violates WP:LISTN and WP:FRINGE were discussed? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Further investigation

I did some further investigation on the whole Sgt. Pepper debacle, and I discovered that the entry was originally added in 2014 by User:Trying to envelop, a blocked sockpuppet of User:The abominable Wiki troll, as show here. Another blocked sockpuppet of The abominable Wiki troll, User:Goblinostic, defended the album's inclusion in the edit summary for this edit and in this talk page discussion. The relevant SPI case files are here and here.

Therefore, per WP:DENY, I support the removal of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band from this article. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 22:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

That is not proper application of DENY. Not even close. That doesn’t apply unless the most recent adding was a confirmed sock of his. The current iteration is completely different from the 2014 iteration. This is one of the worst attempts at WP:WIKILAWYERING I’ve ever witnessed. You need to stop immediately. Sergecross73 msg me 23:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and I found this, where you had removed the original entry per concerns on the talk page. The relevant discussion is here. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 23:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, my initial take, 5 years ago, was to leave it off. My views have changed over years of maintaining the article. Regardless, point is that the 2019 incarnation is double in length and written by a number of different editors, so DENY doesn’t apply. DENY doesn’t automatically ban content from Wikipedia forever. If people in good standing wish to re-add or expand upon it, it’s fair game. Sergecross73 msg me 00:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I really don't understand why the article must follow your rules - when in fact it violates several Wikipedia rules. However, you have supported the inclusion of Pepper because, and I quote, "your interpretation of the article's scope". Why would an article contain an item purely because of your personal interpretation, when it violates WP:BIAS, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, etc.? Even your 2014-self had the same thought. I don't know what made you change your mind over the last 5 years, but your personal interpretation of something should not affect an article. Especially because whenever there has been an RfC here, you've jumped immediately to say that the album belongs here, and when this article has been nominated for deletion, and somebody says that it should be deleted because it violates Wikipedia's guidelines, your only argument is, and I quote, "I disagree". Of course, with arguments like that, no consensus is reached, and you can point out that again, no conclusion was obtained. (Notice that always the nominations for deletions say that the article should be kept, but it should be cleaned). By the way, this is not an "accusation" against you as you have said. I'm only trying to make you see that your personal interpretation of something shouldn't affect an article, since it breaks Wikipedia's guidelines. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 03:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
@WKMN: the lack of a clear inclusion criteria is why the RfC failed to reach consensus. The whole purpose of the section above is to be the first step in determining what the inclusion criteria is. Once there is an inclusion criteria Sgt. Pepper can be evaluated against it and included or excluded based on that assessment rather than individual's thoughts on what the inclusion criteria might be. Thryduulf (talk) 08:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I really doubt that an inclusion criteria can be reached, since personal interpretations of the articles are getting in the way from improving it. Since certain users won't agree with the criteria that others will suggest, they can say that once again, "no consensus will be reached" and the controversial entries of the articles will remain. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 14:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Most worstest singers ever

No sign at See also of the anticipated List of singers considered the worst, which surely would include Florence Foster Jenkins and possibly also Wing? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

MOS:SEEALSO doesn't allow for redlinks in a see also section.... -- ferret (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason you see this as an "anticipated" article creation? It doesn't strike me as particularly likely to happen unless you were referring to yourself creating it or something. Sergecross73 msg me 14:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 24 May 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- DannyS712 (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

List of music considered the worstList of music notable for negative reception – Title change to bring this page more in line with other lists of this nature. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 16:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Strong Oppose - on many grounds. Most notably, we're currently working getting a consensus for inclusion criteria. We should figure that out first, and then see if a rename is warranted. This should not be a concurrent discussion. Besides that, there's the other fact that we don't need absolute parity between article titles, there are other articles that reflect this name (List of films considered the worst), and the current article title captures the current scope of the article better. Sergecross73 msg me 17:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose At this time. With all due respect, you've opened in the last 48 hours: A DRN (declined), an ANI posting (retracted), and an Arbcom case (Likely to be declined). Let's solve the issue of the inclusion criteria under discussion above before rocking the boat further. The inclusion criteria may very well support a page move at it's conclusion but this is just muddying the waters more. -- ferret (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose right now. I think it's more important to define why an album/song should be in this list, and with the criteria defined, we could move or rename the article. I don't agree with the current title, but I also don't agree with the proposed one. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 19:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. When there is consensus about what the criteria for inclusion are we can revisit the title issue to see if there is an alternative that better matches the scope, but we can't do that until we have that consensus. The proposed title would also imply a significant expansion of the current scope as there is much music that has had a notably negative reception but is not considered "the worst" (Madonna's cover of American Pie comes to mind as an example). Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Chinese Democracy by Guns N' Roses

I disagree with the inclusion of this album. Critical reception has been mostly positive. One critic, Stephen Davis considers Chinese Democracy as "the worst album ever"[1] and according to Ayre Dworken the album is "the worst album I have heard in years, if not, in all my life of listening to music.".[2] Two Time Out New York writers named Chinese Democracy as the worst record of 2008, but Hank Shteamer also placed the record on his top 10 list[3]. The rest of the sources aren't negative enough to have much weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ Berndtson, Chad (13 December 2008). "Author Stephen Davis has chronicled rock royalty". The Enterprise. GateHouse Media. Retrieved 9 May 2017.
  2. ^ Dworken, Arye (26 November 2008). "AU CONTRAIRE: Guns N' Roses, "Chinese Democracy" (Geffen)". Self-titled. Pop Mart Media. Retrieved 9 May 2017.}
  3. ^ "The best (and worst) of 2008". Time Out New York. Time Out Group. 16 December 2008. Retrieved 9 May 2017.

Sources for "worst albums of all time"

Starting a list of useful sources – anyone, feel free to add to it. JG66 (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks for those. Those would serve as a start-up point for including albums in the article. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 17:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, well, well

Look likes two of the biggest pushers on keeping the Sgt. Pepper's entry turns out to be nothing more than sock puppets for the User:The abominable Wiki troll. Good job, Sergecross! Rjrya395 (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rjrya395: I've reverted your removal of the entry (although I shouldn't have used rollback, I apologise for that) as there are good faith arguments made for it's inclusion by users in good standing and the inclusion criteria are still being discussed above. Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, if that's the case, could we start the RFC? WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 14:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
@WKMN: If you want to start the RfC you can, but as I posted upthread I think it would be better to get have proposals that include (reasonably) objective definitions of "general consensus" first as without that I think consensus for anything will be harder to achieve. Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, there was far more support for it beyond those socks, and it’s not the same entry from many years back either. Sergecross73 msg me 13:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Sure, Serge. Rjrya395 (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Return to "List of music considered the worst/Archive 5" page.