Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden age hip hop (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. Skomorokh 13:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Golden age hip hop
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * DELETE this article, although sources are cited, is merely a synthesis of published material and thus violates the no original research policy. (WP:SYNTH)  It is beyond saving. JBsupreme (talk) 08:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep A clear epoch of a complex and convoluted genre. Nicely sourced and referenced, may need some paraphrasing and an infobox though. It's recognised as standalone by Allmusic and other notable media like Rolling Stone and Village Voice. I realise that some will point to old school hip hop but that genre has a wider timeframe throughout the 80s whilst this is more to do with the magnum opus era of the late 80s of the likes of Public Enemy and De la Soul. Finally, the previous commentator clearly needs to be taught what "no original research" (and "statement contradiction") actually means. Rafablu88  17:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't kid yourself, this "article" is little more than namedropping and should be deleted promptly. JBsupreme (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to me you may have a personal agenda here. As I explained above, WP:N and WP:V are met 10 times over. There is nothing that is not rigorously cited. If I had the time, I could probably get this ready for WP:GA in a couple of days, it's that nicely sourced. Rafablu88  23:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This seems to be a notable category of music. Many cites are given that support this. Like many topics of the kind the exact meaning and boundries are a bit vague and subjective, but that can't be helped. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep As mentioned above, it's recognised as standalone by Allmusic and other notable media like Rolling Stone and Village Voice.Crateescape101 (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm afraid this is another in a series of disruptive hip hop afds and prods launched by JBsupreme and going back over a period of years. User:Michig often turns up with a simple google search to refute him (and writes the article up nicely), but in other cases he has been successful at prods or poorly attended afds, and Wikipedia has been mocked by rap writers for erroneous deletions. In a deletion review for Skyzoo some months ago I implored this editor to work in another area. I encourage anyone with any influence with him to do the same. 89.100.145.57 (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I give two howling examples at the drv; there are many more, but as an example of something I mention above, here's Noz, who covers hip hop for NPR, has written for XXL, and been cited as an expert by The NYT. The Max B referred to would be this Max B, btw:               89.100.145.57 (talk) 06:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - How can this even be questioned? This genre has all notability you need. It may need to be better sourced written but honestly, deleting it is like deleting articles for legendary rappers like Rakim who are key golden age MCs. --81.216.183.206 (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * or legendary rappers like MC Shan? I would argue this article was impeccably written at the time of nomination, btw. 89.100.145.57 (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2009 (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.