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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It may need a rename though if it is not referring exclusively to the Rolling Stone list. We also have some precedent for keeping articles like this. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Delete First of all, if this is going to get kept, the name needs to be changed to "Rolling Stone 100 Greatest Singers of All Time". Second of all, this might have coverage, but it's pure opinion. Notable magazine or not, we're regurgitating... partially even... someone else's subjective opinion and passing it off as objective fact. The issue of copyright comes into play when we begin regurgitating other people's lists. All in all, I think this is better off getting the axe. Sven ManguardWha? 09:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did a move to remove Rolling Stone from the title per the title of the articles in Crisco's comments. The list voters are not necessarily associated with Rolling Stone magazine. As for the copyvio, precedent is to list the top ten. I asked about this here. --CutOffTies (talk) 11:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the precedent is that way, and it would be enough to satisfy most people. For those who want to see the full list, there is a link at the bottom. The only way we could include the whole thing is if Rolling Stone explicitly granted permission, but that's unlikely. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that even that precedent is iffy per the Wikimedia Foundation attorney's advice. See her feedback here. I've reduced the list to the top 10, but this is not really safe practice according to her. I've been meaning for almost two months now to launch an RfC about this, but it keeps getting shoved aside by more urgent considerations (see User talk:Moonriddengirl/sandbox)--Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to discuss it there. If the proper person contacted Rolling Stone to get permission (full or partial) would be nice too, although it could end up with us not including the list. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. For what I can read from the feedback the list is definitely one best left unapproached without such permission. Kudos if there is, but still the title's gotta change like Sven Manguard said - frankieMR (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- as copyright infringement per Wikimedia Foundation legal opinion (See Moonriddengirl's link) -- this exists only as a direct copy of a subjective list. Even it wasn't a copyvio, the title is terribly misleading. Greatest Singers? Throughout the world? Throughout History? Really? Note there are no pre-rock singers (Frank Sinatra}, no jazz singers (Billy Holliday), no foreign language singers (Edith Piaf), no operatic singers (Luciano Pavarotti) and there can't be any singers after 2008. The best that can be said is this is a List of Rolling Stone Magazine's suggested greatest pop rock singers in the United States music market between 1950 and 2008. Otherwise, this is a geocentric, time-constrained POV that should not be presented as if it were a worldview encyclopedic fact. — CactusWriter (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there is permission - frankieMR (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2011 (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.