Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thug (hip hop slang)

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.--Hús ö nd 04:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thug (hip hop slang)[edit]

This is simply cruft. WP is not a dictionary for slang. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 00:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If any of this can be verified & sourced (which I doubt it can), then any meaningful bits should be moved into another article if one exists. The term thug has been around a lot longer than the "hip hop" era, so already the article is incorrect. The article smells of OR & as the nom said, Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Delete. Spawn Man 00:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. I would also recommend deleting the original thug article/disambiguation claim and making it a redirect to Thuggee, because there's really not much more than dicdefs that can be added for it. JuJube 00:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. We have an article on "thug", and an article on "rap/hip-hop", to boot as well. --Haemo 00:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It may be a poorly written and unsourced article, but the concept is real and encyclopaedic enough. A quick academic journal search on "thug" did turn up plenty of sociological articles on hip-hop culture. As for already having an article on "thug", obviously the subject of this article is very different from thuggee. FiggyBee 01:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. We already have a thug article. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 01:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ATT /Blaxthos 05:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This should be deleted as OR. Also it does not cite any of its sources. --Cyrus Andiron ^t/_c 14:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To parahrase: "thug in hip-hop slang is pretty much the same as thug in normal usage, only much more interesting because it's said inna hip-hop stylee" or something. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dictionary definition desperately stretched out to article length, including bits about "restored cars from the 40's-70's" (no, really). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delizzle my nizzle. M.C. OR & Diccy D in da house, yo. — Krimpet (talk/review) 19:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability and it's original research. — Pious7_Talk ^Contribs 20:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It seems very unimportant in an encyclopedia. -- Wenli 00:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 02:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kill it like Tupak -- SakotGrimshine 18:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NOT#DICT Captain panda In vino veritas 00:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although sort of interesting Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this idea is essentially unverifiable. --Hydraton31 14:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much nonsense. Artaxiad 21:07, 25 March 2007 (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.