Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of controversial album art


 * 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   keep. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  16:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

List of controversial album art

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Arbitrary and vague inclusion criteria with very few citations. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep could easily be defined by news stories identifying album covers as such. There are several notable examples which come to mind immediately and I figure there has been a chapter in some rock book discussing this somewhere somehow. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable topic. If you'd like to discuss narrowing the inclusion criteria, the talkpage is awaiting your initial input... -- Quiddity (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep though the article is only partly referenced at the moment, the topic is a good one and most of it should be easy to verify. Maybe a good rule of thumb should be to include only examples where the art was actually changed. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  20:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting topic, worth covering, and NOTCENSORED. With appropriate sourcing in this list, there's no reason this couldn't be an FL someday. Jclemens (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Unless there is clear inclusion criteria and references this article would seem to run the risk of WP:Synthesis and WP:POV--Utinomen (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Yeah, I created this article years ago after this AfD. The previous article was just a list of albums and wasn't sourced at all.  I kept in the most obvious examples and sourced some of them; it's been expanded since and needs trimming.  I agree about the inclusion criteria, though; probably something along the lines of (a) albums that have notably had to be re-issued in different packaging after objections (b) other famous examples and/or items that have resulted in wide coverage, even if they remained unchanged.  And yes, they all need to be cited.  I think it's probably still a worthwhile article, though. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - What, no Smell the Glove??? But seriously folks, lists like this have no obvious and readily understandable inclusion criteria, which reduces the thing to the level of subjective original research. Carrite (talk) 23:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, yes and no. If albums have actually been banned for their cover art, been censored or made to re-release in alternate covers, or otherwise raised major news attention, and that's sourced, I think that's a pretty good inclusion criteria. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems easy to find sources for this such as Pop Art in the The rough guide to cult pop. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2010 (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.