Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indie hip hop

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 merge to Underground hip hop. There are many reliable sources that use the term, but by WP:NEO, they must actually discuss the term itself, and not merely use it. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indie hip hop[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion, fails notability guideline and cannot be attributed to reliable sources. As it is, article is original research. Dan56 (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nota bene: Dan56 has been canvassing here and at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hip_pop. Arcandam (talk) 06:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anyone who is a hiphop fan knows this is notable. Article should be improved, not deleted. Arcandam (talk) 06:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears the subject is notable. In addition, there are references at the bottom, they're just not cited inline. I believe those reference links could be taken and, with inline citations, be put in the relevant places in the article. JoeGazz84 ♦ 12:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources seem wholly unreliable: WeLiveThis.com has nothing to do with hip hop. And I think last.fm is user-generated content. The rest are blogs. Dan56 (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Arcandam (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article's content seems to deal with what Underground hip hop deals with, so aint it content forking? Dan56 (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To you that seems so. But underground and indie hiphop are different. And thanks to that other page you nominated we know how much you know about hiphop related genres. What do you think of that other possibility: improving the article? You just nominate stuff for deletion and then you canvass hoping it will be deleted. Arcandam (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But what are you basing this difference on? Isnt it your opinion? What is this article based on? If you want to improve, then no one's stopping you, but take my points in good faith and stop accusing me of canvassing. I've only nominated "hip pop" for deletion, and now this. It's relatevily new to me. I just pointed out the problem with the references listed for this article, so what's your take on that? Dan56 (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On years long experience listening to music, but there is probably a source out there somewhere if you spend some time on Google. But you are unwilling to do that. Unlike you I can name a lot of songs that mention the genre pop rap/hip pop for example. And I can use Google to find sources. Can you do that too? Maybe even better than I can? Please please show me. :-) AGF only works when there is no evidence to the contrary. Didn't I ask you if you had read WP:CANVASS? Didn't you answer yes? [1] Didn't you do the canvassing after that? You have not only nominated "hip pop" for deletion, you have also nominated Indie hip hop. Arcandam (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should put a notice with big red bold letters saying: Please be careful. If in doubt click here. Arcandam (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think both warrant at least a discussion. The burden is not on me to improve an article. I have experience listening to music as well, and there's probably not a source out there somewhere. You keep avoiding the points I present. Dan56 (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you keep avoiding the points I present. First you wanted sources for poprap, now that even you have to agree there are more than enough sources and that they are fine you change your opinion and suddenly another change is "required". My advice is to go buy a monkey to do your work for you if you are too lazy. If those two articles are the only ones you've tried to get deleted so far you seem to totally misunderstand which pages should be deleted and which should be kept and why. You may want to read a bit about new page patrolling, if you do that you can nominate all kinds of terrible spam articles for deletion and everyone will like you and give you barnstars. Arcandam (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is very subjective terminology; there's a whole lot of indie everything in music, most if which suffers from lack of notability. The only content of use is the dicdef in the first line. Otherwise, this is an unnecessary content fork. MSJapan (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 00:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hordes of coverage for both. The Star Tribune Indie hip-hop fans finally get Paid; mentions indie-rap [2]. Hordes of people in the news media referring to it as this, therefore it must exist as a notable music genre. Dream Focus 20:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it coverage of the term, rather than just articles on something else that happen to use the term? (WP:NEO). Dan56 (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you look at Google News and Books, there are many articles that describe the concept in detail going all the way back to its roots. It is not just trivial coverage. This clearly makes it notable. Stedrick (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while such new genres are habitually deleted, this one appears to be the rare exception, due to the sources that prove notability. Canvassing does not affect my vote, much as the sins of the priest affects not the Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, or harmless error by the prosecutor does not mitigate the guilt of the criminal. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay?... Hordes of articles using the term, but same for other neologisms, like "indie jazz" or "old school funk". Who said "trivial"? I meant coverage in general.. of the term/genre, whatever the claim is, not what's in the criteria of WP:NEO. Are you referring to the articles on independent labels signing hip hop acts? I don't see anything on GoogleNews about the genre, though. A lot of the results are in the vein of "indie rap label(s)", referring to independent labels that happen to release hip hop music. This one has the author using "indie" in quotes, apart from "hip-hop", as if he's uncomfortable using "indie". GoogleBooks results, like Spin (10/2000), mirror what Underground hip hop's content (anti-commercial, conscious lyrics, indie labels, etc.) Content forking? Otherwise, which results on News or Books have anything "about the term or concept"? Dan56 (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The exception cited in WP:OUTCOMES#Music, alternative metal, is one that has at least some articles covering the topic. That discussion resulted in enough, albeit minimal coverage, with articles cited like About.com's entry and Allmusic's entry, soley about alternative metal. If such articles existed for this case, they would make it a notable term/genre, and an exception to deletion. Dan56 (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as a unnecessary content fork of underground hip hop, which has basically the same meaning, and this term is much less used than the underground term. The term in its current use and how it is mentioned in sources is either as underground hip hop or original research by several blogs which aren't reliable sources. It seems like most of the "keep" voters in the AFD mainly participated because of the bloodbath between Dan56 and Arcandam and didn't do further research on the subject, which is one of AFD main weaknesses, that people who aren't familiar with the subject are mainly the ones who decides if an article gets kept or not. It is easy to decide if the subject/topic meets GNG, but it's usually misinterpreted like in this case, or there's other violations that trumps GNG. Secret ^account 18:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. The article is just a verbose definiton of the title with a list of independent record labels added. Not a separate, notable genre, just a collection of artists who didn't or couldn't sign with a major label. DocTree (talk) 22:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.