Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Parental Advisory albums


 * 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   delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Parental Advisory albums

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I feel this article fails at serving a purpose. It also has misleading information, and is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. KMFDM FAN (talk!) 21:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The list has no end in sight......also depends on OR in large part. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a collection of indiscriminate information. Resolute 04:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep List serves a purpose. Needs to be sourced though, which would take care of the OR concerns.  Aditya  α ß 05:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Topic seems to be trying to be a directory and doesn;t seem like it is discriminate in an encyclopedic way. This list isn't a notable subject any more than any other list of anything is. Are these really all the albums? ChildofMidnight (talk) 10:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment : I don't see how a list can be OR, simply looking something up is not OR or the whole project needs to stop. Since no original conclusions or ideas are introduced, OR should not be an issue. However, I'm not really sure what the point is any more than I understood why you need a list of insurance companies. Curated lists really need to be considered more carefully given automated alternatives- wouldn't you be better off asking the inquisition to create a searchable database on their site? It seems to me the publisher of the naughty songs list should provide authoritative information in this case.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you go to Wal-Mart and see the advisory sticker, then write it here, it is OR. Someone else needs to write that the advisory sticker is there. I really dislike that ideal. I can watch a bridge fall down, but until someone else writes about it falling down and puts it in a RS, Wikipedia pretends it did not happen. Look at the length of this list and then how many are sourced. How did that long list occur with those sources? Answer: OR. And of the couple of listed sources, at least one I recall is for a non-notable recording. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm being facetious but it does help sometimes, before you start making up things, to get a good grasp on all the data, and it can be hard to write an encyclopedia sometimes... So, I think you could look at it as a list entry being a primary source- if you find one it may be relevant once the list is notable.
 * I'm not sure that is entirely right. You need secondary sources to establish notability- wiki doesn't pretend it didn't happen, just fails to care. Once you have notability, you are free to include primary sources if you can make them relevant. If the list topic is notable, then you can find examples as long as you don't need to inject a new idea- certainly with medical lit the encourage primary sources. Monkey see, monkey is do ok just don't think or add anything :)

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment A problem often faced in lists is that no valid criterion is specified. If the article was: List of Songs Kids Shouldn't Listen To, then that would be OR. Here the criterion is CLEARLY specified. OR my foot.  Aditya  α ß 11:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't believe that original research is a significant concern with this article, but I don't see much point in the article either. I can understand being interested in whether a particular album has a parental advisory, but if you want to know that, you can look at the cover of the album. I don't see why we would need a list of all the albums that have parental advisories. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - indiscriminate trivial laundry list. Artyline (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Struck comments of banned editor.  Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 03:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I frankly do not see a reason why an encyclopedia should index such information. It's completely trivial and WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Corpx (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Even though I nominated it, I just figured out a new reason why this list needs to be deleted, IT WILL NEVER STOP! There will probably be about 5000 records released with a PA sticker in one year! And this list only has albums with a sticker in North America. What if Japan has a warning label on all the Beatles records? Do we include that? What if Italy has banned the sale of Nine Inch Nails records to anyone under 18? Do we include that? There are two many exceptions and little flaws for this list.  KMFDM FAN  (talk!) 16:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You may not vote twice, in this case your nomination is counted as a vote (or !vote). Also note many, many lists in Wikipedia go on forever (like a list of episodes). And finally, the article is pretty clear as to which albums should be included in the list: This is a list of albums and EPs that have the Parental Advisory sticker affixed to them in the US by the RIAA.  All your arguments are now irrelevant.  Aditya  α ß 17:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete It's a never-ending list of no real descernible value. Who is going to visit Wikipedia and say, "I'd really like to read a list of every parental advisory album ever?" It has no use whatsoever. Esteffect (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't decide whether articles should be deleted or not by judging whether anyone is going to come to Wikipedia to read that specific article. That is way too subjective.  Aditya  α ß 17:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * NOTE: The author of this article, WP:Geekyboy87, came in a blanked the entire discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete 1. It is in violation of WP:IINFO, part of WP:NOT, in being an indiscriminate collection of information. No relation exists between the contents other than this one relatively irrelevant attribute. 2. The list is not a "list of Parental Advisory albums", but a "list of Parental Advisory albums in the US", and I'm not even sure it is that as it depends on exactly how a PA album is ratified. The systems in other countries (eg UK, Australia, European countries etc) which maintain other Parental Advisory systems differ. See Countering systemic bias for more information. I actually don't think OR is much of a concern as if the rating is issued by one agency, it probably produces a list. Orderinchaos 07:40, 29 June 2009
 * Citing Countering systemic bias as a basis for deletion suggests dealing with for instance an under-representation of African heads of state by deleting, say, Polk, Taft and McKinley. 86.44.25.131 (talk) 03:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I find a use! Some parents are concerned about these things! You guys are being cruel and unreasonable!!! Don't delete this, PLEASE!
 * Drama much? If parents need to know if an album is explicit, they can look it up on sites like allmusic. KMFDM FAN  (talk!) 17:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. We've got worse lists around - List of bow tie wearers - and although the current article is OR, there's a damned good case for an article on this, I feel. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A list of people notable for wearing a bow tie is more capable of being complete - A list of albums with 'explicit content' is certainly not, would go on forever, and has no use. I don't see what the case for an article is, it's like an article such as, "List of songs with 'love' in the title", and so forth. Esteffect (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a list that could go too. How often can that be sourced reliably? Is it s aone time wearing or a habitual wearing? Being useful sounds nice, but that's not really the standard. I have no use for an article about a soccer player from Cyrus, but it makes it in. I could use a good recipe for a new BBQ sauce, but that doesn't get included. Useful is far too subjective of a standard. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact that there are worse lists on Wikipedia is not really a good defense for keeping this list. That, and the bow tie wearing list seems at least somewhat useful. This list you can just go to sites like allmusic to find out if an album has explicit content.  KMFDM FAN  (talk!) 17:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please explain how it's OR.  Aditya  α ß 17:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Original Research is not an issue with this article. Unless you consider that sometimes stores like wal-mart will take the liberty of adding their own little "PA" sticker. It usually looks like the one provided on the left.

to albums that we're never meant to have one such as green day's album "Dookie" or System of a down's "Toxicity". But anyway, OR is not the matter. The matter is the fact that:


 * This list is not useful
 * This list does not come up on any articles that would help the user
 * This list is based on a subject that is to large to be finished
 * The list has information that is found on several websites other then wikipedia,

KMFDM FAN (talk!) 21:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not useful to you, sure. How do you know it's not useful to anyone else? Your second point is basically the first one rephrased. And about the third, we're building an encyclopedia which can never be completed. If you think that list is too large then you don't have to work on it. There are lists about much larger "subjects". And your last argument really isn't an argument at all. Wikipedia is a collection of information found on other websites all put in one place.  Aditya  α ß 06:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's always going to be a long list, but the topic of albums receiving this label is notable, and it is covered in reliable sources. It is possible to source, I made a start - all the references were added by me, using reliable secondary sources. Sites like band or record label websites would also be acceptable sources. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "The list has information that is found on several websites other then wikipedia". Lamest reason to delete ever. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.