Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rock epics

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. Per WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 05:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of rock epics

A random pov list of "epics" with a vague set of criteria for inclusion. Introduction is pure original research and the entire article lacks any sort of verifiability to support any of the list entries as an "epic" other than the song being a longer duration than the standard 3 minute single. Fair Deal (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a never ending list. It's too vague in scope. WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. JamesBurns (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure listcruft. Drmies (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete pov cruft. Wether B (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Almost every single song listed has already passed the wikipedia notable test, since it has its own article page. The few that don't, have artists with their own page, making the song significant enough to be listed. And the list is fine, it showing the length of the songs. Dream Focus 17:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if the songs is notable, The issue here is the songs is considered as a "rock ballad" or not, which is just original research which is against our policy. Delete Secret ^account 18:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. What constitutes a "rock epic" is the whim of the poster. Themfromspace (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if rules are outlined regarding what exactly to include. Additionally only songs should be included that have an own article and sources to show they meet the given rules.--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 09:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete foolish page. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Musicruft. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list needs better referencing and more defined inclusion criteria, not deletion. There are plenty of reliable sources calling a good number of these songs "epics". E.g., "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida", "Stairway to Heaven", "American Pie", "Bohemian Rhapsody", etc. Here's a source that could probably be used to help flesh out the introduction. DHowell (talk) 05:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:LISTCRUFT. Inherently violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an inherent violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. There is simply no way to independently determine whether a song is a "rock epic". Stifle (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not opposed to this being recreated if there is very strong sourcing, but a cleanout is needed first. Stifle (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bad criteria, no sources, no real concept. Vaguely like "The Final Countdown" isn't a genre. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:12, 6 March 2009 (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.