Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avanthop


 * 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   merge to Hip hop. until enough RS sources that actually discuss the genre surface. Effectively this article is unsourced. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Avanthop

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete. Non-notable and barely existent genre. It doesn't help that a bunch of anon IPs are on a crusade filling up musician infobox templates with this supposed genre. JBsupreme ( talk ) ✄ ✄ ✄	 06:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Why should an encyclopedia not list all genres of music? A published music magazine mentions it. http://www.nme.com/artists/anticon It is clearly defined there, listing also some of the bands that are affiliated by that genre.   D r e a m Focus  07:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The NME link above is to a copy of the Anticon. WP article, by the way.--Michig (talk) 09:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep but consider renaming to 'Avant-garde hip hop'. 'Avanthop' appears to have little in the way of available sources. 'Avant-garde hip hip' however has a lot more, and enough to justify an article, including a lot of news items from Google news, and several Google Books results . The nominator's removal of links to Avanthop from all articles that it appears in (using UNDO without an edit summary, which presumably means that they consider its addition to be vandalism) immediately prior to bringing this to AFD is also not helpful.--Michig (talk) 08:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Google shows no WP:RS results for "Avanthop": . As for renaming the page to Avant-garde hip hop, there is a reason WP:LOTSOFSOURCES is listed as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. According to the same logic, we should also have articles for "hot hip hop", "cool hip hop" and "innovative hip hop" (582, 221 and 245 Google News results, respectively). Most of the Google News and Google Books results appear to be trivial mentions that display all possible combinations of "avant-garde" and "hip-hop", including ones separated by commas, periods and other punctuation marks. — Rankiri (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Rankiri. We need to exercise caution when counting Google hits and actually examine their merits.  It does not appear that there is any meaningful coverage of this genre in order to build up a proper article at this time.  Unless we intend to also build articles for "cool hip hop" and "hot hip hop" as well.  ;-)  RFerreira (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a big difference. When people write about "hot hip hop" they are not referring to a subgenre. There are many sources referring to the subgenre of "avant-garde hip hop" whether or not they constitute coverage specifically of the genre.--Michig (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please list at least some of these sources. "Avant-garde" is a commonly used adjective. If the sources don't cover the subject directly, isn't it synthesis to assume that the phrase refers to a distinct subgenre? — Rankiri (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * These, for instance:, , , , , , , . --Michig (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Only two of these sources even try to discuss the subject in any detail. One is an album review that tries to define it as "hip-hop built from samples harder to grasp than a wall of Jell-O, whose time signatures change faster than a 15 year-old girl's fashion sense, all strung around beats dirtier than the old man asleep at the bus stop". I wouldn't exactly call its coverage of the subject significant or encyclopedic. In the other, the author criticizes some press release for using the phrase “hip-hop’s first avant-garde hip-hop troupe”, arguing that "[h]ip-hop itself is inherently avant-garde". I'll agree that at least some of these sources seem to refer to it as a subgenre ("in favor of classic jazz and against avant-garde hip-hop", "from post-rock to drum'n'bass, avant-garde hip-hop to modern jazz", etc.), but I still don't see enough significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to consider this supposed subgenre notable. Perhaps it can be mentioned on Hip hop. — Rankiri (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2010 (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.