Deletion of List of songs in English labeled the worst ever (3rd nomination)

Comment: To the people electing "Keep", please explain how the current "cleaned-up" version of this list passes  - it still contains such blatant POV as "Aqua's satirical dance number is not strictly noted as the worst..." (so it should ''NOT'' be in this list) and "'Disco Duck'... Near the top of The Book of Rock Lists' list of worst #1 hits" (so it should ''NOT'' be in this list), and that's just the first few lines. This list must use solid verifiable criteria for inclusion, or it is just obvious editorial picking-and-choosing per Luna Santin et al. These two examples prove the point categorically. Since no such selection criteria have been asserted or seem likely ever to be asserted, this is an obvious Delete as intrinsic NPOV and NOR failure with no hope of credible fix-up. #Lists and criteria for inclusion of list members is absolutely clear on this. It is not enough when it comes to lists to cite a random unnotable source per entry - criteria must be clear, self-evident and unbreakable from the start, and must apply to ''every'' entry in the list
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:LIST)

Comment: Forgive me, but I'm not seeing the excellent citations a bunch of you are mentioning. The criteria for inclusion are vaporous and subjective (see ), and two of the six sources cited are nothing more than lyrics pages. I hate to say this, but I'm not convinced of the article's encyclopedic notability, or of its factual objectivity, or if it even has any capacity to ''become'' factually objective. There's evidence of cherry-picking by editors -- one source lists 100 songs, another 50, another 40, and the last one 20; how, then, do we find the article itself listing 21 songs, if not by an editor's own opinions? See  again, along with . One of the sources is even a forum, which runs afoul of . As I see it, none of the pages cited make any serious effort to provide the means by which they've designated any of these songs as "the worst ever," and none of them strike me as particular authorities on the matter. Citing a few op-ed pieces from an incredibly minute sample of mostly-unheard-of websites doesn't quite cut it, for my tastes. Sorry
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:NPOV||WP:NOR||WP:V)

Comment: I have just been through the article and deleted the editor's own descriptions of the songs (which I feel are probably accurate as it happens). However, he does give the source of the "worst song" tag in each case, so it is not |OR (i.e. it's not his choice), not is it |POV, as it's not his opinion. I think the article could be expanded with more research and should cite more references, but I feel it is something that will be of interest to readers, particularly if brought up to standard
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:NPOV)

Comment: this is subjective and indiscriminate. Fails  miserably
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: It is bad procedure to keep renominating articles for a start. This is not |OR as it clearly cites sources such as
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)