Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emo rap
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. BJTalk 00:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Emo rap[edit]
- Emo rap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Appears on the surface to be an neologism. neon white talk 23:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Rapping. Not notable enough (as a concept) to have its own article. The most important points of the article are unsourced. Google returns the Wikipedia article, then a bunch of blogs and YouTube pages. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 00:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - As above. There seems to be enough here to warrant a section somewhere, but not an entire article. TN‑X-Man 13:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can only find evidence of it used in articles about the group Atmosphere and nothing to explain it's origin or meaning in the major music sources. It seems to be used as a buzzword --neon white talk 18:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article is well sourced. So it is a neologism, but not an original research. Any rap music subgenre is good enough to have its own article. See nerdcore, hyphy etc. - they are not very popular, but have their own articles. And after all, rapping article is about vocal technique, not rap music or rap music genres! Netrat (talk) 09:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There are 45 000 Google hits for "emo rap" (including reliable sources like MSNBC article, not limited to video sharing web sites or blogs), so it is cleary not an original research but a term widely used among music critics and fans. There may not be a set definition or mentions by musical encyclopedia, but it does not mean the subject does not exist or is not notable. Netrat (talk)
- The majority of the article, however, is based on unverifiable sources. There is absolutely no evidence that the term is widely used. --neon white talk 20:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is absolutely no evidence that the term is widely used? How about Google test? 45 000 pages is something! And if youy believe that the majority of the article is based on unverifiable sources, you should insert "fact" templates after these facts (or better yet, search the Internet and press for verifiable sources, so you can insert these SOURCES to the article yourself) instead of nominating it for deletion... Netrat (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaving aside the fact that the majority of the hits are blogs, self published pages and mere instances of the two words occuring together, hits on a search engine are not a criteria for notability nor evidence that a term is widely used. This is original research. A reliable secondary source is needed. A neologism cannot be claimed to be notabile simple by pointing to it's use. "An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy)." Read the guideline Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms#Articles on neologisms for more info. It's not good practice to edit article whilst an afd is in progress unless it is to improve the sourcing of the article. --neon white talk 15:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, tens of 1000's hits on a search engine may not be a criteria for notability. But they are the evidence that a term is widely used. Second, there already are reliable sources cited in the article. I'd agree that there's not enough of them, so we should add more. BTW, you seem to be the only user supporting this deletion nomination, so you are not going to have a consensus for deletion. Netrat (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have already stated that hits on a search engine cannot be used as evidence of the wide use of a term. This constitutes your original research and is not permitted. See WP:NOR and Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms#Articles on neologisms. The only thing that is of use to assert the usage of a term is a reliable secondary source which is currently absent. Consensus is not based on numbers, it is based on valid points citing relevant policy and guidelines. Invalid views and refusals to get the point will be disregarded. --neon white talk 18:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, tens of 1000's hits on a search engine may not be a criteria for notability. But they are the evidence that a term is widely used. Second, there already are reliable sources cited in the article. I'd agree that there's not enough of them, so we should add more. BTW, you seem to be the only user supporting this deletion nomination, so you are not going to have a consensus for deletion. Netrat (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaving aside the fact that the majority of the hits are blogs, self published pages and mere instances of the two words occuring together, hits on a search engine are not a criteria for notability nor evidence that a term is widely used. This is original research. A reliable secondary source is needed. A neologism cannot be claimed to be notabile simple by pointing to it's use. "An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy)." Read the guideline Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms#Articles on neologisms for more info. It's not good practice to edit article whilst an afd is in progress unless it is to improve the sourcing of the article. --neon white talk 15:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is absolutely no evidence that the term is widely used? How about Google test? 45 000 pages is something! And if youy believe that the majority of the article is based on unverifiable sources, you should insert "fact" templates after these facts (or better yet, search the Internet and press for verifiable sources, so you can insert these SOURCES to the article yourself) instead of nominating it for deletion... Netrat (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The majority of the article, however, is based on unverifiable sources. There is absolutely no evidence that the term is widely used. --neon white talk 20:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: As was said, the most important parts of the article are unsourced. The fact that some people use the term does not make it notable. I don't believe a merge is necessary as I don't see what there is to merge. This term hardly even deserves a section in Rapping. — FatalError 04:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "BTW, you seem to be the only user supporting this deletion nomination, so you are not going to have a consensus for deletion." Netrat, you are the only one against it. Four people have voted for deletion or a merge, you're the only one that wants to keep the article. — FatalError 04:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion and merge is not the same thing! Actually, "merge" means we are going to keep the information, but in another article. And BTW, where do you see 4 persons "voting" for deletiong or merge? There are only 2 persons "voting" for merger plus nominator "voting" for "delete". Also, I believed AfD was discussion, not voting (two very different concepts in Wikipedia). So these are "opinions" and not "votes". Netrat (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, sorry, I have not seen your vote. So there are two people for deletion. Both are using the same arguments - non-noable and unsourced. I have alredy answered to these, but I do agree we may need more (additional) sources. There's absolutely no evidence more RS cannot be found. So let's just look for them instead of such bad faith nominations... Netrat (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability doesnt work on the assumption that sources might be found. --neon white talk 15:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources have nothing to to with notability. They are added to clear original research, unsourced disputed information and unverified information assumptions. Netrat (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, sources have everything to do with notability. An article that does not have reliable sources to back it up is not notable. Articles require "verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability," which means "Substantial coverage in reliable sources." — FatalError 17:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources have nothing to to with notability. They are added to clear original research, unsourced disputed information and unverified information assumptions. Netrat (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability doesnt work on the assumption that sources might be found. --neon white talk 15:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't think it would add any more meaningful content if merged. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 01:12, 18 July 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.