The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 02:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page is both unencyclopedic (not sufficiently relevant to warrant an article of this size, and it's veracity, scope and enforcement are called into serious question) I am nominating the article for deletion for several reasions1. lack of citation, this article has insufficient documentation (documentation such that there have been real arguments posed as to the veracity, enforcement, and scope of this alleged list.2. unencyclopedic. This list at most rates a footnote in history or an encyclopedia, while I agree it passes the notability litmus test, it is not sufficiently notable to command an article of this size. Trelane 01:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :
"Censor \Cen"sor\, 2. One who is empowered to examine manuscripts before they are committed to the press, and to forbid their publication if they contain anything obnoxious"
From this it is clear that a censor must be an outside, not an inside influence, else the arguement would be made that a Clear Channel DJ censored one artist by playing a track by another artist at any given time. And while the previous answer fails the reason test, it does not fail your definition of censorship, therefore your definition is unreasonable. Trelane 02:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this is messedrocker
(talk)
06:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]