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. - Mailer Diablo 02:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks[edit]

This page is both unencyclopedic (not sufficiently relevant to warrant an article of this size, and it's veracity, scope and enforcement are called into serious question) I am nominating the article for deletion for several reasions 1. lack of citation, this article has insufficient documentation (documentation such that there have been real arguments posed as to the veracity, enforcement, and scope of this alleged list. 2. unencyclopedic. This list at most rates a footnote in history or an encyclopedia, while I agree it passes the notability litmus test, it is not sufficiently notable to command an article of this size. Trelane 01:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 : 

 "Censor \Cen"sor\,    2. One who is empowered to examine manuscripts before they
       are committed to the press, and to forbid their publication if they contain         anything obnoxious"

From this it is clear that a censor must be an outside, not an inside influence, else the arguement would be made that a Clear Channel DJ censored one artist by playing a track by another artist at any given time. And while the previous answer fails the reason test, it does not fail your definition of censorship, therefore your definition is unreasonable. Trelane 02:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, self-censorship is a well-known concept (and that definition above is a pretty poor one). Censorship is a much broader concept than the most heavy-handed versions of it, and "content standards" are a very common form of what most people would call censorship, whether they are imposed on an organization from the outside or whether it is a result of an organization having a monopoly and using its own internal standards. --Fastfission 23:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "owning" arguement was merely a personal attack (something that is also against Wikpedia policy) made by an editor who could not prove his own argument. Such an argument is irrelevent to both the article and this nomination as the argument itself is a violation of policy. -- LGagnon 19:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, disputes such as these may provide background on a)the article as it is currently written, b)possible motivations for AfD nominations, c)other motivators behind arguments made in the AfD. The relevance to both the article and any AfD nominations is clear. -- H·G (words/works) 23:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you are saying that "You just want to keep the article the same because you think you own it" is a valid argument? That is a clear violation of the No Personal Attacks policy. -- LGagnon 01:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (vote change). I still feel that the controversy was notable and that such a list, if it verifiably exists, has a place on Wikipedia. The "urban legend" argument isn't strong here--the article notes that the "banned" element of it has been proved an urban legend, but this doesn't mean a list of "inappropriate" songs wasn't distributed by Clear Channel--in fact, as Snopes points out, there was such a list, though Clear Channel notes that it was intended merely as advisory. However, I hadn't taken the time to review each cited source when I previously voiced a "keep" vote. As far as I can see, none of the sources for the actual list meet WP:RS (as per Zer0fault's post below). Thus, without any threshold of verifiability met to determine which songs were actually on this list, this article in its current incarnation should go. -- H·G (words/works) 20:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll admit that I'm just skimming, but I believe that the article states that the list is not an actual "banned list," but a list that Clear Channel sent to member stations in an advisory capacity. This is what Snopes confirms; thus, I don't see any conflict between what has been confirmed by outside sources and what is already mentioned in the article, save perhaps an unsourced "rumor has it" sentence near the top. -- H·G (words/works) 06:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit of an outrageous accusation: [1], and a lot of my other contributions are done not logged in, although I have a dynamic IP so it's difficult to show all of them.
That's why it's called a list of inappropriate songs, which, if you read the snopes article, is correct. The list did exist, internally, in several forms, though perhaps this form is not accurate, the fact a list existed is true. This was already mentioned above. - BalthCat 21:00, 7 August 2006 (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.
More