Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?)

1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?)

This nomination predates the introduction in April 2014 of article-specific subpages for nominations and has been created from the edit history of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests.

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page unless you are renominating the article at TFAR. For renominations, please add {{collapse top|Previous nomination}} to the top of the discussion and {{collapse bottom}} at the bottom, then complete a new nomination underneath, starting with {{TFAR nom|article=NAME OF ARTICLE}}.

The result was: not scheduled by Bencherlite ^Talk 07:33, 11 June 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) is the debut album of British band The Justified Ancients of Mu Mu (The JAMs: Bill Drummond and Jimmy Cauty), later to be known as The KLF. 1987 was produced using extensive unauthorised samples which plagiarised a wide range of musical works, continuing a theme begun in The JAMs' debut single "All You Need Is Love" (included on the album). These samples provided a deliberately provocative backdrop for beatbox rhythms and cryptic, political raps. The album was released to mixed reviews, but was a commercial success. Shortly after independent release in June 1987, The JAMs were ordered by the Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society to destroy all unsold copies of the album, following a complaint from ABBA. In response, The JAMs disposed of many copies of 1987 in unorthodox, publicised ways. They also released a version of the album titled "1987 (The JAMs 45 Edits)", stripped of all unauthorised samples to leave periods of protracted silence and so little audible content that it was formally classed as a 12-inch single. A limited edition release subjected to recall and a destruction order, 1987 became something of a rarity and by 2000 mint condition copies were trading for £60. (Full article...)

Featured Article about a music album, I think it's been a while since we've had a music album on the Main Page.
Interesting intersection with educational material for readers about copyright issues.
Relevant date, generally, released in the month of June 1987.
Support, as nominator, — Cirt (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Minus one point: 2 points for age, -3 for proximity to Odyssey Number Five. – iridescent 21:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This scraped through FAC seven years ago when standards were lower, and it shows. As just one example, you describe it in your proposed blurb (and the article lead also describes it) as "a commercial success", but the article makes no mention of sales or chart positions at all. Wikipedia is certainly not short of well-written music articles, and I see no reason to run this one when there are so many better ones, quite aside from the fact that Jimmy Wales would likely veto it because of the title. (Yes, WP:NOTCENSORED and all that, but having "fuck" on the main page in bold will get the site blocked by spam filters and blacklisted in certain countries, and he's the one who'll have to interrupt his vacation to deal with the press.) – iridescent 21:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: added 2 points for old FA, a mixed blessing, but that's what the overly simple point math is good for, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, this article should wait for a while for separation from the other album. Not now. The profanity has nothing to do with anything. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I enjoy reading this article but iridescent has a point on filter issues. Does one really want to have the front page of Wikipedia blocked for four days? Its as likely as having the cover of Virgin Killer be front and center. GamerPro64 18:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. An interesting article and blurb, but its title will cause too many problems, as suggested by others above. A pity, really. — This, that and the other (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Iri. --Rs chen 7754 02:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boldfaced swear words on the Main Page are just barely acceptable "below the fold" i.e. in DYK, and often only as part of our April Fool's jokes (like "... that Elvis's Greatest Shit was dropped in 1982?", from this year) where they're there and gone in six hours or so. Having this above the fold on the Main Page for a full 24-hour period isn't quite as bad as the German Wikipedia putting vulva there along with a relevant photograph, but it will come closer than anything else we've done. Daniel Case (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: does the above mean this "featured" article can never be featured? - Would a pipe link help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on the nomination, but oppose the current choice of image. --Dweller (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]