Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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]

  • Delete. Mention of this at Clear_Channel#September_11.2C_2001, with external links there to relevant sources, suffices. --Aude (talk contribs) 01:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No citations? There are 3 of them done in the standard format, and there are 2 links to the original list. Unencyclopediac? This was a major news event a few years ago which should be mentioned in Wikipedia. The size of the article is needed to fit the list, which is quite important to demostrating the extent to which the list went to remove songs from the air. There is no reason why we should delete an article on such a well-known event in the history of censorship in the US. -- LGagnon 01:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd suggest you read the citations, and the discussion on the page, it is altogether unclear as to what the scope of this "censorship" was. That therefore must make this article pure speculation. Furthermore while we're on the discussion of censorship, let us then discuss the definition of a censor.

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]
  • Keep, but... (vote change below). I disagree with the nom about the notability of this article--Clear Channel is a large entity whose decisions affected the playlists of a huge portion of the radio marketplace. Its actions are indicative of the social and cultural climate of that time period in the United States, and a well-maintained list serves to illustrate the extent of that climate/attitude in the music industry. There are also references provided at the end that I expect back up most of the entries. That said, a review of the Talk page and edit history seems to back up allegations of attempted OWNing of the article, and it might have been wise to call for mediation some months ago. But at this point, the edit wars appear to have died down (no conversations on the Talk page for a month before today, and the bulk of recent edits have been more like copy-editing), so even that may not be an issue at this point. -- H·G (words/works) 02:11, 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]
  • Weak Keep I feel the subject of the article is reasonably notable. I was about to go with just having an external link, but the advantage to having the list here instead of just at an external link is that readers can easily click on individual songs and read about them to get a sense as to why the song may have been banned after 9|11. Alternatively, the article could be expanded to include that information directly in this article. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 03:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete Merge the sources and the verifie factual statements, delete the rest. Only verified 'banned' songs should be listed LinaMishima 03:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- this article has been in existence for more than 2 years, and still it does not cite verifiable evidence that the list existed in any form other than as an urban legend -- it's pure hoakum. When Snopes examined this issue, it decided that the list was Urban Legend, yet the author consistently refuses to allow the introduction of material casting doubt on the list's authenticity -- it's pretty much a one-author guard-dog article. The article violates WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OWN and WP:NOR. Should've been deleted long ago. Morton DevonshireYo
    • Morton, you are still using the same lies you used to argue against the article last time. You never read the Snopes article, and you are still claiming it says something totally different from what it actually says. The list is not an urban legend, the ban is. -- LGagnon 19:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And stop the personal attacks. The "owning" argument you are making violates WP:NPA. -- LGagnon 19:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete What a bunch of unverified garbage. It's false. Get a clue. Can we have list of cheeses the moon is made of? Or maybe the list of Wikipedia articles that Snopes verifies as false. Just because the authors were suckered by the internet, doesn't mean it should continue to be published as encyclopedic content. --Tbeatty 06:13, 5 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]
  • Keep but... make sure it's clear that it's only an urban legend that Clear Channel tried to "ban" these songs. It's still worth having as a reference. Korinkami 10:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic nonsense --Pathlessdesert 12:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, highly noteworthy situation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete I have attempted to get the editor to provide some proof of this list being "the" list that was circulated. They cannot do so because the list was never released, both of the sources offered do not have the same list and one is cited as more complete. While I am sure that a list was circulated, it was also need a ban or censor list, well the article fails to prove it was, with one source stating by Clear Channel that it was neither. So we have a list from 2 different sources, a list meaning a bunch of items, because neither is in a proper email or fax formatting or even contain a letter head to prove some sort of authenticity. Since the sources cannot be verified and do not even appear in any form that would be standard as evidence or proof. Keeping the list is promoting information we do not know to be true, the list cannot be different on two dif sources, and neither sources has the original fax email etc. merge mention, but delete the list as the songs on it are unverifiable. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, there is one real version of the list, which we have here. The editor who claimed that this is an urban legend added the "Many versions of the list were circulated on the internet", which is his original research. That can be removed for now. And yes, the songs are verified by the 2 links given at the bottom. They don't have to have your "requirements" because you don't even know that those requirements were there to begin with. -- LGagnon 19:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No you don't have "the" list, you have a list of songs, neither source has a letterhead, a signature or any other identifying markers to prove its real, they are actually just recompiled lists of artists and songs. Again the actual listing of whichever songs does not exist in a verifiable form. The fact that there was a list has been proven, its reason for existence has been disputed and its exact contents is not existent in a verifiable form. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if it can't be verified it shouldn't have an article. --RMHED 16:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - All this needs is a few good citations and a little bit of cleanup. Also, the title should be changed to something more user friendly. dposse 17:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, if Dposse's ideas are used to full extent. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 18:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as reliable citations are provided ASAP. --Fastfission 23:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete The snopes article clearly identifies this as false. And I did read the article. — NMChico24 23:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --NEMT 23:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in agreement with Aude above, a mention at Clear_Channel#September_11.2C_2001 should be sufficient.--MONGO 05:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really don't know... it's a valid list, but it's awfully specific. Merge into something else if possible, since it's awfully specific to be its own article. If there's no other suitable article that confirmed information can be moved to, delete'. —this is messedrocker (talk) 06:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks plenty verified to me, and was definitely a controversial act in the media in the days following September 11, 2001.I don't see the word "ban" in the article anywhere; has it been cleaned up since the AfD? --Gau 06:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Maybe I'm going outside the scope of Wikipedia, but I think the list should stay. As long as it is verified, it makes much more sense to keep this list accessible to the reader so they can view the list and from experience or lyric research synthesise their own opinions on the event rather than relying on citations from other sources in the ClearChannel article. And if we remove the list and don't represent responses to the event, we trivialise it, when in this company represents the majority of radio media in the US and any action to discourage the playing of songs is very relevent to the emotional state of the nation after 9/11. (I don't see WHAT this could be merged into... ) - BalthCat 06:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article indicates accurately that the list was circulated but the songs were not banned. The president of Clear Channel is cited as admitting that the list was circulated. It was a notable incident, in part because of the rumors it caused, and the list should be preserved for researchers interested in this. The "lack of citation" argument seems incorrect, and even the person who nominated it for AfD acknowledges its notability. I could see supporting a merge argument if the list is put on wikisource, but having it here with wikilinks to articles on the bands could be useful.--csloat 09:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete What a load of wasted blather about such meaningless listcruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository of information. There is absolutely no point to this article, as a composite of trivia. That, combined with the possibility that the whole thing may or may not just be complete bollocks (and I tend to think it is) means that it is unencyclopaedic. Just get rid of it. Byrgenwulf 11:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository of information. While the alleged incident was newsworthy, this detailed list has no encyclopedic value. Moreover, the references cited in the article make it clear that the contents and intent of the alleged list are not well established. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 12:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Accurate article on a notable incident. Gamaliel 15:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't understand why people keep saying this was just an urban legend. The list was real, the ban was rumor. The Snopes pages cites four sources for their article, including The New York Times, The L.A. Times, and The Washington Post. Three major newspapers published articles about this, and the list is mentioned in the Clear Channel article. It only makes sense to have access to the actual list from there. DejahThoris 19:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: DejahThoris (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. (Possible SPA of LGagnon)[reply]
  • The problem is there is no proof what so ever, that the songs on this article are actually hr songs from the list. The only proof is a website saying its the list. There is no letterhead, they are not a news agency and there is no signatures. This "list" fails WP:V by its contents. The fact that numerous versions of this list exist and it seems one is just randomly being vouched for as the complete list with no proof is a horrible failure of WP:V. Furthermore its an internal document so there may be legal issues to reproducing it. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete a lot of this is unverified and has the feel of OR. Mortin Dev. provided a link that confrims Urban Legend.Æon Insane Ward 20:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. An interesting list. --Guinnog 20:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This was not a "ban" list according to Snopes.com, just an advisory/judgement call list. So, its a storm in a teacup. Not encyclopedically notable. Importance seems to have been wildly exaggerated by post-9/11 moral panic over censorship Bwithh 20:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Encyclopedic? Rmt2m 20:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, as long as it remains clear that this list wasn't a ban but a "recommendation list". Perhaps it would be better to change the title to "List of songs deemed possibly inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks". --Mispeled 23:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Mispeled (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. (Possible SPA of LGagnon)[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]
  • Delete This warrants no more than what already appears in the Clear Channel section (removing the link back to the list article). --Geneb1955Talk/CVU 12:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- needs some cleanup, but is (or at least can be, given the citations) reasonably verified and is important and encyclopedic enough to be kept. Dylan 21:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional comment could also use a title change to keep in rigorous alignment with what the songs were -- banned, "deemed inappropriate," "discouraged from playing," etc. Dylan 21:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is an interesting subject worthy of inclusion and does appear to cite multiple sources. Yamaguchi先生 21:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We need to separate the deletion of the incident from deletion of a list of songs. The incident is notable enough for inclusion; perhaps not within its own article but as it currently stands within the Clear Channel article. A list of songs that were "banned" is not worthy of inclusion, and hence my vote is to delete. Unfortunately, a number of the opinions expressed are to include the article without consideration for whether this list of songs should be included. Ask yourself: Were the incident to warrant an article of its own, would a list of 150 songs be appropriate for inclusion in the article? The incident is minor but notable. However, including a list of some 150-odd songs is not, especially as they were a suggestion, not a "ban". --Mmx1 01:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The very existence of this article implies that the list had some nefarious purpose above and beyond being a suggestion, which has never been established by anyone. I endorse its deletion, per WP:HOAX, WP:OR, and WP:V. — GT 01:23, 9 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_songs_deemed_inappropriate_by_Clear_Channel_following_the_September_11,_2001_attacks&oldid=1136109966"