Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of albums censored by Wal-Mart


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

List of albums censored by Wal-Mart

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:IINFO. Unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.  Event horizon51  (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page because it is also a list violating WP:IINFO:


 * Delete Both OR lists put together for who knows what reason. And it's not censorship.  A store has the right to sell or not sell anything it wants.  From Wiktionary: "Censorship The use of state or group power to control freedom of expression or press, such as passing laws to prevent media from being published or propagated."  Borock (talk) 05:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete both - OR, unencyclopedic, unverifiable. ✤ Fosse   8 ✤  14:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 11:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 11:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete both. There is merit in having something on Wikipedia about Wal-Mart's product selection and in fact we already have it at Criticism_of_Walmart, where this is covered in some depth. However I don't see where we actually need a listing of every CD that Wal-Mart has refused to carry because not only is that a little too indiscriminate, but it's also a little OR since we can't guarantee that the reasons given on the articles are actually the reasons the store decided not to carry them. Not only that, but using the term censorship is inaccurate for the reasons given by Borock. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I made the Walmart page, but I don't understand how either one of those 2 lists are directly against Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.242.9 (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2015‎
 * Moving this over from the talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Both WP:IINFO suggests that lists should be discriminate collections. Since both of these have targeted, specific collections of information, they should pass that standard, with admission that both - especially Walmart - need cleanup. 5minutes (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * These articles would definitely fall under WP:LC. Lists such as these have little to no encyclopedic value at all since they are too trivial and specific. They are not of interest to many people at all and do not correspond closely with any other article on Wikipedia. Although the lists are targeted and specific, their very existence violates WP:IINFO and WP:LC.  Event horizon51  (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete both These fail WP:NOTCATALOG. Consider - we don't maintain lists of what items a store does carry, so why would we maintain lists of what they don't carry? – Philosopher Let us reason together. 02:51, 27 February 2015 (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.