Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latina stereotypes in 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 delete. I'd be happy to draftify this on request if anyone actually wants to work on it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Latina stereotypes in hip hop[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Mostly exists as an argumentative essay with no real enyclopaedic substance. I'm mostly citing WP:TNT for this. AtlasDuane (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Albums and songs, Music, Ethnic groups, and Sexuality and gender. AtlasDuane (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks like a page of WP:NPOV. Jonchache (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Original research and undue weight abound. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - for what it's worth, those saying it sounds more like a personal/research essay are probably more correct than they realize - the articles creator appears to have done it for a college writing course, it was virtually their only contribution to the project, and it doesn't appear any of the course's attempted essays lasted for long. Sergecross73 msg me 01:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems like a wonderful essay but does not establish this as a singularly notable subject for Wikipedia's purposes. QuietHere (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Latin America. QuietHere (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've been at WP for a long time and I'm still shaking my head over that "WikiEd" project that someone thought was a good idea back in the mid-2010s. Students learned how to do research and write online articles, only to have most of their works deleted for breaking the rules (WP:OR, WP:NOTESSAY, WP:GNG) of the very same site that invited them to participate. And we're still cleaning up the mess years later. The nominator and previous voters are correct on how this one does not qualify for WP. Sorry, kids. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't understand that one either. If you want to do it, teach them how to properly source and article we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 01:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - call me contrarian, but I don't think that it's irredeemable. In fact, there are plenty of reliable sources that show significant coverage. The style is poorly worded, to be charitable, and parts of the article are synthesis. Overall, I don't see problems that can't be fixed by ordinary editing systems. 15:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)

While this may be true, I would at least like to note that the best way of going about recreating the article would be to WP:BLOWITUP so it may as well be deleted anyway as the first step to that. QuietHere (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that the article is in bad shape and there are issues in tone, sourcing, and neutrality. I also agree with User:Bearian regarding the article's redeemability and the notability of the subject matter. What do we think of Draftifying it? Additionally, we have Stereotypes of Hispanic and Latino Americans in the United States, although I don't think there's enough proper material in the nominated article for a merge. Mooonswimmer 14:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever is fine as long as it gets out of mainspace. I doubt someone would want to work on it, though. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When recommending to Draftify, we have to consider who would improve the article after that is done. The creator and early contributors to this article were part of a special school project 7 years ago and have long since moved on, and the article's history since then consists mostly of minor cosmetic changes and typo fixes. Having an article sit in the Draft system with no progress in sight isn't really much better than just deleting the whole thing. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a bunch of things mashed together to form an "article", nothing cohesive. I guess we could save parts of it, but, it's not worth it. Oaktree b (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the parts that are actually of value could be covered elsewhere most likely WesSirius (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2023 (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.