Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Appropriation of Hip Hop Music


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 08:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Appropriation of Hip Hop Music

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to be original research. red dogsix (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  03:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete per WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:SUBPOV (none of the content in the article is presented neutrally), WP:OR (no reliable source claiming that the African American population and its future descendants own hip hip music). These are WP:DEL-REASON 5, 6, 9, and 14. It does not seem that any potential article by this name could ever meet WP:NPOV. The very idea of this article insists that some population owns Hip Hop Music and that non-members of that population have no right to contribute to it. This is also not a majority opinion held by any in-group or out-group population.  The artists (WP:BLP) mentioned in this article are not presented neutrally and with due weight, and I can't see how any future version of this article could meet those requirements.  If anywhere, the specific complaints about each artist should be stated only in a controversy-esque section on each of the BLPs (if supported by neutral, reliable sources), where interested editors can come to consensus as to reliable sources, neutral pov, and due weight.  Really, the only possible fix I see for this article, if there really must be coverage of this topic is a healthy dose of WP:TNT and a move/merge to a proper name. ―  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  22:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. That seems like a whole lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  This article has quite a few citations to reliable sources, and a spot check of them does indicate that they discuss cultural appropriation.  I don't know whether they discuss it in a broader context, because I'm not really interested in reading a dozen long articles about the cultural appropriation of hip hop music.  I'll alert WikiProject Hip Hop about this, as they'll probably be more interested. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. OK, I lied; maybe I'm willing to skim through a few articles.  I did a Google search, and I came up with explicit support for this:  from The Guardian,  from Vice.com,  from Philly.com,  from The Hollywood Reporter,  from BET,  from Indy Week, etc.  There are extensive hits from a simple query on Google News. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Every one of those is an opinion article or an interview. They're all WP:PRIMARY sources. "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."  This article presents a minority opinion as if it is fact. There is no WP:IDONTLIKEIT above by me or the nom, but several actual policies listed. Go reread WP:IDONTLIKEIT and show me exactly where a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument is made. &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  17:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep Given the number of academic studies cited the sources as simply "opinion pieces." There are however issues with taking the appropriation of hip hop by BLPs as objective fact and this has to be reworked. Will try and work on the article a bit later to make it more adherent to NPOV. Bosstopher (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTSOAPBOX, every source is an opinion piece by the author aka WP:PRIMARY which does not equate to outside examination on the phenomenon itself which what would be a secondary source. Creator of the article only seems to have contributed to this topic which would make it highly likely to be a WP:SPA to spread a certain viewpoint. GuzzyG (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 14:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP is not a platform for essays. Also "appropriation" itself has a negative connotation and suggests a lack of neutral point of view.--Rpclod (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - really seems like WP:OR. Some of the sources discuss appropriation of African American culture as a whole, which I think has enough notability to meet GNG. But this one just does not. —Мандичка YO 😜 23:25, 16 May 2015 (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.