Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden age 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The result of the debate was keep, nomination withdrawn. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Golden age hip hop
This can be mentioned in Hip hop culture instead. -- (aeropagitica) 14:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I posted the following on aeorpagitica's user page: lemme explain why this deserves an article: 1.Allmusic.com recognizes golden age as a genre 2.Old school hip hop has its own page. 3.There is plenty to talk about, of encyclopedic significance. Please remove the suggestion for deletion, or if you disagree, discuss this with me. Thanks! --  Urthogie 14:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

For these reasons, I suggest a speedy keep decision for this article.--Urthogie 14:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is already mentioned in Hip_hop_music, and there is no content that justifies a separate article right now. Hence, redirect. Karol 15:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason it has no such content is I just started it! And by the way, the mention of it in hip hop music was thanks to my edit.--Urthogie 15:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well then, please add something meaningfull and I may be inclined to change my vote. Karol 15:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete- not worth a seperate article. Reyk 22:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete- can easily be covered at main hip hop music article. --Jamieli 17:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Expansion
I will prove its value as a seperate article. May I request a one week period of expansion before any action is taken as far as its removal? We can continue voting and deciding after that period.--Urthogie 15:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Based on the contents of the article as I have reviewed it today, I suggest that this article is now retained rather than deleted. The author has put work in to the contents and acknowledged that more work is to be done in order to make the page a useful resource for research and reference. -- (aeropagitica)  17:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Removing this vfd
I am removing this vfd from the page, as the creator has chosen to keep the article now that I have made edits. A new vfd may be placed if you feel that this does not deserve an article.--Urthogie 17:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good now. Karol 22:21, 5 January 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.