Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks (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 no consensus – the community seems split down the middle, with good points made by both viewpoints. - Krakatoa  Katie  04:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

2nd nomination, a year after concensus was not reached. Article seems to be an indiscriminate list --Oscarthecat 17:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mention of this at Clear_Channel, with external links there to relevant sources, suffices. --Aude (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's not an indiscriminate list. It's a specific list based on a leaked internal communication that has been reported in external sources. --Darksun 18:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable list, reported in independent press.  Inclusion is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "indiscriminate". JulesH 20:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I like the list, but is there really any encyclopedic value to it?  When we get down to brass tacks, it's just a bunch of songs loosely grouped together with nothing in common.  The real content of merit here is the Clear Channel "ban", and as Aude said, it can go into the Clear Channel article.  The list itself can be linked to externally, or maybe go into Wikisource. --UsaSatsui 20:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The banning appears to be notable and the list itself seems to be somewhat fundamental to that.  I see no reason to delete. -Chunky Rice 22:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This list is a classic in radio broadcasting history, as well as a classic example of overreacting to a crisis, trying to avoid offending anybody, or of corporate bumbling. There was nothing remotely similar on the strange day that was 9/11.  Although most people recall hearing about the list, and reading some of the examples of temporarily banned songs later, there are few sources that show the entire document.  And it IS a document... these were indeed directives sent out to Clear Channel stations.  Even now, less than six years later, there will be people who doubt that there really was a "no play" list (or that there were no planes in the skies for a few days)... but it was real.  Mandsford 23:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The event is notable and encyclopedic (and covered in another article). The list itself, however, isn't. --UsaSatsui 00:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Stupid as it shows them to have been, it is still not a major event. If it were as notable as claimed, there would be better sources. DGG (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite. It's not an indiscriminate list in terms of the WP article (although it may be indiscriminate on the part of Clear Channel). It's an actual list compiled by Clear Channel at the time. The event is notable and was covered by RS at the time. Suggest additional context about the ban and the reaction to it, and rename the article so it's not just a list. The actual list can remain but needs to be annotated to explain more clearly the official reason why each song was included, and any public reaction about individual songs. This article can be made more encyclopedic.  Dbromage  [Talk]  01:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete list of songs not to be played by a parent company is trivial information.  If the sources are reliable, just link to them, instead of copy/pasting the list with minor additions Corpx 02:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The list isn't trivial. It appears to meet WP:LIST and WP:LISTV on its own, but it can be improved into a well sourced article about the ban.
 * - "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources" passes
 * - "articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources" passes
 * The historical context of Clear Channel questioning the appropriateness of these songs is notable and the article can be rewritten as such. The songs can still be listed if the company's rationale for each is explained. Note that Clear Channel did not actually ban any songs, they just questioned the appropriateness. Dbromage  [Talk]  03:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly, it is just something a corporation decided to do.  WP:NOT#NEWS also comes into play as I see very little historic notability.   I guess snopes does in a way verify the contents, but I still do not think WP needs to make a copy of such a list Corpx 05:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. If it received substantial news coverage at the time (which it did), then it meets WP:N. Dbromage  [Talk]  06:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Anything receiving substantial coverage is not automatically notable. Examples would be "one event celebrities", reality show contestants and anything else that's appropriate for wikinews, who all meet WP:N, but have no historic notability Corpx 06:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Inclusion of this list runs into several problems:  (1) Most importantly, it is impossible to verify the items on the list as being the same ones on the real list produced by ClearChannel; (2) the list is already available in full from other sources, so a neutral discussion of the list is all that is required to be on Wikipedia; (3) inclusion of the entire list may constitute a copyright violation; and (4) the article is repeatedly altered to include songs that are not on the source list (ignoring the verifiability issue).  Recommend merging the commentary at the top of the article into the article Clear Channel, linking to third-party sources as appropriate, and deleting the rest.  -- Dachannien TalkContrib 07:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve per Darksun. Thin Arthur 08:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is extremely trivial. At most it merits a one sentence reference in one of the 9/11 subarticles. Brandon97 14:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as unencyclopedic trivia. Eusebeus 15:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Smerge (shorten and merge) to Clear_Channel, including a link to the list at an external source if desired, and the Snopes discussion of it, and examples which reliable and independent secondary sources have pointed out as noteworthy in the list, such as Louis Armstrong's "What a wonderful world." That a major corp over-reacted and circulated such a wierd "bad list" is encyclopedic and an important part of the history of the broadcasting industry response to 9/11, but little point in reprinting verbatim a lengthy list. After Pearl Harbor, some patriotic Americans wanted the 3000 Japanese cherry trees around the tidal basin in Washington D.C. chopped down . That fact could go in an article about "response to Pearl Harbor attack," but we would not print a list of each of the cherry trees, with its location and picture. Edison 16:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Offer a Transwiki to Wikisource (I couldn't find anything relevant there), then delete. There's enough about the incident in the 9/11 section of the Clear Channel article.  Since there were multiple versions of "the list" and the CC office's initial list isn't what the cited sources present for attribution, this level of detail doesn't add enough understanding to justify a standalone article (or an extra 13Kbytes stuffed into the main article). Barno 00:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This topic was the subject of countless non-trivial articles in all sorts of news media.  It is still informative today.  It is in no way "indiscriminate" based on the sourcing. Croctotheface 07:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-encyclopedic 9/11-cruft. There is no need for a redirect, either. Burntsauce 17:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Little historical significance, very trivial. Dannycali 03:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge onto another page more appropriate. It doesn't need it's own article. — M o e   ε  17:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge for reasons described above. 9:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * Delete. A perusal of the Snopes commentary on this list indicates they don't believe the rumor. They indicate there was a more complex story, and that *some* Clear Channel program directors sent out some emails. Their commentary cites mainstream outlets like the NY Times, the LA Times and Slate, indicating that our references for the article are incomplete. The sources found by Snopes seem unlikely to justify a specific list, so the exact listing we have now is most likely bogus, just an internet rumor. I question the belief of some editors above that there is a specific 'leaked internal communication' that is faithfully reproduced on the various web sites that now host the list. A made-up internal communication seems just as likely. EdJohnston 02:35, 28 August 2007 (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.