No it is not valid, you can't write "Daisuke Kawasaki" because he is not a person of note, when a reader wants to check who the author is, there is barely any information about him apart from blogs (even in Japanese) If it was written by Hidekazu Yoshida or someone like Pauline Kael then it is of some note (but still not in the lead) It is not an achievement, and only because other articles do it doesn't make it acceptable. It is no different to this situation, what one can assume to be "teenage fans" are entering this stuff into articles and watching to ensure its not removed, when it is fancruft nonsense which is why the US/Australian magazines etc make this sort of stuff, easy money. Another major point to be made is that you don't speak Japanese and you have not read the magazine, you are referencing a website which itself hasn't done any research (but you call reliable) and is simply reposting what neojaponisme said. Interestingly this is exactly where all the information about this list comes from, and neojaponisme is not a reliable source, it is a blog site. They could of changed parts of it or made it up entirely to put in what they wanted The list itself was called biased by it's own publisher Rolling Stone (and they distanced themselves from it, even writing 独断と偏見で選んだ on the cover!!) the list is not written by someone of note, it is written by a self-published defunct fanzine owner (how amusing, a fancruft list written by a fanzine writer) You yourself can pitch an idea to a magazine and get it published, you just have to convince them it will be good for sales. There is also no explanation as to why the albums were selected, it's just a numerical list, easily fabricated.27.33.143.93