Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abstract 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. The sources provided by east718 do not make the current stub any less unverifiable or original research. No prejudice to writing a sourced article from scratch, though.  Sandstein  21:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Abstract hip hop

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is comprised of original research, and violatesWP:V,WP:RS, and WP:NEO Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm here to solve that sourcing problem.


 * "Abstract hip-hop elevated to new heights" by Jazon Paz, published on March 11, 2002 by the University of Hawaii
 * "Rap, Hip Hop and Exploitation" by Karen V. Kelly in the January 14, 1995 edition of the Michigan Citizen
 * "Abstract hip-hop mix-master...", published on September 19, 2004 by the Washington Post (disclaimer: I haven't read this article)
 * "Beaten in Taipei" by Max Woodworth in the April 13, 2001 edition of the Taipei Times
 * "Behind the beat: 10 classic hip-hop albums" by Chris Vongar in the July 29, 2007 edition of the Dallas Morning News
 * "Soul Train Awards Continue To Honor Black Music" by Kaia Shivers in the March 15, 2000 of the Los Angeles Sentinel

Concerns about original research can be addressed by one or more experienced editors giving the article a once-over. east. 718 at 12:05, July 2, 2008


 * Delete Original research, bias viewpoint, the article remotely sounds like a product from the way it's written Yamakiri  TC     [ §]    07-2-2008 • 19:44:55 19:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The only news source was a promotional for one album, the wiki is loaded with niche lingo, WP:NPOV problems?PB666 yap 21:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If the above refs discuss the genre in detail, then keep. If East has read those sources, I suggest he turn the article into a sourced stub because it's highly unlikely anyone else will source the article anytime soon (I would but I can't access those refs online). Spellcast (talk) 09:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:OR and WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.