Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of music videos with censored explicit content (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 06:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

List of music videos with censored explicit content
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Entire list is unsourced (with exception of one entry which source does not mention the artist or title or censorship at all), per WP:LSC - "Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." Additionally, given the multitude of censorship rules and laws globally, this list could never be comphrehensive enough to cover all entries; and if it were that comprehensive, it would fail WP:SALAT as being too broad. Tgeairn (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree. The notable (and sourcable) ones belong in an article on music or media censorship, but trying to cobble together a list of everything censored anywhere by anyone is outside to encyclopedic scope. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  10:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 14:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 14:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete all listcruft. I do not see how this is a maintainable list, as the criteria for inclusion is not exactly clear.  What may be acceptable in one country or culture is not in another.Roodog2k (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Music videos are normally covered in the article on the corresponding song, so most music videos are not considered independently notable. Since lists are supposed to contain notable things, that poses a problem. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, meaningless equivocation without context. Some countries may ban certain content absolutely, some may only ban it in certain channels of distribution, some privately-owned content distributors may have their own voluntary content restrictions, and some privately-owned content producers may have voluntarily edited content in the expectation of censorship or merely negative public opinion. Lumping all of this in one pot without distinction to these various contexts and causes is not informative. And that's even without getting into the question of what constitutes "explicit content"... postdlf (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2012 (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.