Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hip hop singers (2nd nomination)
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Spartaz Humbug! 05:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of hip hop singers[edit]
AfDs for this article:
- List of hip hop singers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Pointless and neglected list which fails list guidelines and is obviously better served by categories. Far too vague to be useful and we already have a large enough problem with non-notable hip hop articles. JBsupreme (talk) 08:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Clearly indiscriminate and well never be anywhere close to complete, thus not helpful for a search. If it does get kept somehow it should be renamed, as hip hop performers would generally not call themselves "singers". JuJube (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Themfromspace (talk) 11:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete indiscriminate list, perfect target for MySpace acts to add themselves. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 13:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per above. Tatarian (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I would just like to play Devil's advocate in that the points above all express a sort of frustration with hip-hop articles that might be coming from a place of unfamiliarity more than anything else. In the case of the text itself, the list is not very good but doesn't it make sense that there would be a page that lists all the different notable hip-hop acts? It seems like if an artist added to the list could be properly linked to the artist's individual wikipedia page that would be a good standard for inclusion on the list. I vote keep because I see this being a potential resource. 138.23.82.131 (talk) 01:09, 20 October 2008 (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.