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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1000 recordings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article can't seem to decide what the book is called (at least three variants are given: "1000 recordings", "1000 Recordings To Hear Before You Die" and "1001 Albums") which does not inspire confidence in its accuracy. The only reference is the site for the book itself so fails WP:RS and WP:N. The list itself is probably a copyright violation. Ros0709 (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The entry is not very different from the long standing article 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die. Yes, confusing that there are two books with very similar names (1001 Albums vs. 1000 Recordings) but not the articles fault. This one is no different in terms of copyright than the other one, so delete both or neither. Anyway I thought lists and indexes were not copyrightable. Despite the apersions above, the list is in fact 100% accurate. Find one thing wrong with it. And if you do, fix it, rather than complain that the whole article should be removed.

The other comparable long standing article would also be subject to the putative WP:RS and WP:N criticism. The WP:RS and WP:N issue seems specious. Both articles are saying "a book said these are the top 1000 albums/recording". The wikipedia article claims no more and no less than that it faithfully renders the list in the book. I do agree that the title of the entry should be changed. The Wikipedia user interface seems to channel you into giving it the original shorthand name you searched for, then offer no way to change it later.

I thought the article was good enough, had enough meat, for the community to build it up, improve it, rehabilitate it. But if your standards are that only perfect articles can be submitted, and that peoples goal is to criticize something they could just as easily fix, then you have just seen my first, and last, wikipedia submission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thx1138bis (talk • contribs) 23:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC) — Thx1138bis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep The title of the book is 1000 Recordings To Hear Before You Die, and it is totally distinct from this book, which was edited by someone else. The topic of this article is a fairly notable book [1], although I agree that the list should probably go. Zagalejo^^^ 00:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If you get rid of the list in this 1000 Recordings article, then get rid of the list in the 1001 Albums article too. But that other article has been around for 2 years. I don't think you can copyright a list. I just don't see why everyone is attacking this article when it is just like an existing 2 year old article.

• I removed the list from that other article. I'm not a copyright expert, but I think it's better to be safe than sorry. We recently had trouble with Nielsen Media Research because of the way we were reproducing some of their data. We could still discuss more general facts about the book, as well as the book's reception. Zagalejo^^^ 07:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no reliable sources given to establish notability. That applies to 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die as well, and practically to 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die (no significant coverage, the only claim to fame is being 7th best seller for a week in Australia 4 years ago).--Boffob (talk) 06:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliable sources do exist for this and all the other books. Just do a Google News search. Zagalejo^^^ 07:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Such sources should be in the article, which, once (if) it is done, should be moved to 1000 Recordings To Hear Before You Die.--Boffob (talk) 07:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I threw in some links at the end of the article. If Thx1138bis apologizes for this outburst, I'd be willing to actually incorporate those sources into the text. Zagalejo^^^ 23:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but Rename, there are oodles of sources for the book, but the article should ideally be renamed to the actual title of the book, per User:Zagalejo above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:46, 28 November 2008 (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.