Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crack cocaine and 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 without prejudice; there is clear consensus to delete this article as partly covered in other articles, partly dangerous original research. Howrealisreal doesn't appear to dispute that the current article is a liability, only that crack cocaine and hip hop is a notable topic - which itself is more or less undisputed in this AfD. So if he feels that he can write a verified article in its place, then he's welcome to do so. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Crack cocaine and hip hop

 * — (View AfD)

This article is in gross violation of WP:V/WP:NOR & WP:BLP. The article can be broken down into three sections: "Crack Cocaine" contains basic information on the drug that is covered in greater detail at Cocaine; " The Crack Epidemic & African American Street Culture" likewise deals with a topic already covered at Crack epidemic; "Crack Cocaine & Hip Hop" & "Modern Hip Hop & Cocaine" are comprised entirely of unsourced original research and potentially libelous accusations. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. MER-C 05:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - This page is certainly.. interesting. Delete per nom. Split Infinity (talk) 05:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Not only offensive but stereotypical. Needs a NPOV should it ever be explored again. Somitho 06:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete V & NOR & BLP & WTF.  SkierRMH, 08:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. TSO1D 15:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per aboves.  Dei zio  talk 16:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Pure liability... Chuchunezumi 16:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom and others. Doc  Tropics  16:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom RZ heretic 22:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: Crack cocaine had-- and still has-- a clear and verifiable impact on hip-hop culture and rap music. There are plenty of books written about this, for example: Of The Hood: Politics and Poetics in Hip Hop by Imani Perry explicitly states that the birth of gangsta rap is directly related to the crack explosion; Stand and Deliver: political activism, leadership, and hip hop culture by Yvonne Bynoe notes specifically that hip-hop music was the first to provided a voice to the voiceless of those in the inner-city crack epidemic, where mainstream news never dared to go; and furthermore the scholarly article Method in the Madness: Exploring the Boundaries of Identity in Hip-Hop Performativity by Christopher Smith points to hits by Public Enemy, Raekwon, and Ghostface in regards to the prominence crack sale and abuse plays in modern urban American history. How can you say there's no notable connection when the emergence of this drug evolved a whole genre of music? --Howrealisreal 20:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No one is saying that the connection between crack cocaine and hip-hop music doesn't exist. While saying that the drug's emergence is mainly responsible for the musical genre may be going too far, there is definitely a long history of early hip-hop musicians having been influenced by the crack epidemic or by being involved in the drug trade. However this article, right now, is full of speculation, sweeping generalizations, and unreferenced libel. Many artists are accused of committing illegal acts without so much as a reference to publicly disclosed police records. Others are simply assumed to have specific views of society and the drug trade because of subjective third-party analysis. Each wikipedia article must bear the burdens of neutrality and verifiability, crack cocaine and hip hop does not. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I see your points. I haven't edited the article as of yet, but I believe that the topic is notable and there are sources that can be added to make it more encyclopedic. I'll work on improving the article (maybe today, maybe tomorrow) depending on when I can find some time. I hope we can spare the article from deletion in the near future. Thanks. --Howrealisreal 15:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete.Get your self a music mag job and you can spew any kind of opinion you want.Leave it off the Wiki please.EnabledDanger 03:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is not my "opinion" as you say. The article was nominated for deletion because it was claimed to be original research and unverifiable. Please remain civil and don't make personal attacks against me for researching the multiple reliable sources required for inclusion. Wikipedia is not censored for any reason, including your bias. Notability is not subjective. Respectfully, --Howrealisreal 19:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep see Howrealisreal's reasons. --Crucible Guardian 18:24, 21 December 2006 (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.