Deletion of Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time

Comment: I somewhat disagree with the notion that this is "a POV article" -- the whole point of |Wikipedia's POV policy is to make sure that '''''the Wikipedia articles themselves''''' are written from a neutral perspective -- the '''''subject''''' of the article does not have to have a neutral perspective (i.e. most movies, songs, books, documentaries, religions, etc., have a definite POV, yet it's possible and acceptable, and expected to have a non-POV article '''''about''''' them). However, I agree with the sentiment that this article lacks notability -- in other words, there really is nothing to write '''''about''''' (..."Rolling Stone published this article about their opinion of the top 500 songs of all time. Yay."). It seems almost |fancrufty -- what Rolling Stone says in their magazine is for their readers to post/discuss in appropriate places (of which Wikipedia is not one). Rolling Stone is not the accepted authority for music rankings -- the Billboard charts are (largely due to the fact that Billboard's methods are quantitative/objective, whilst Rolling Stone's are qualitative/subjective). Again, there really is nothing to write '''''about''''' (..."Rolling Stone published this article about their opinion of the top 500 songs of all time. Yay
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:POV||WP:FAN)

Comment: Maybe even  keep.  Easily verifiable and notable list by verifiable and notable publication.  There is nothing wrong with the list.  If its a vandal magnet, try , but this isn't a deletion issue
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW||WP:RFPP)