Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hip hop soul


 * 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   no consensus. I could relist this as the article has changed since the nom was made, including sources, but with mixed opinions, a No Consensus that defaults to keep is just as effective. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  21:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hip hop soul

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I hate to nominate this article because this is my favorite kind of music to listen to, but...after a thorough Gsearch, I couldn't find any proof that "hip hop soul" is actually a genre. Moreover, as stated on the talk page, the two sources in the article only refer to the photo of Mary J. Blige in the article, not the subject of the article itself. (A similar discussion occurred about "piano rock".)  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 04:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there anything of value here that could be merged into another page, such as R&B? --Dfeuer (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There might be; the problem is, the article is pretty much all original research. And it's not that I don't agree with some of the points in the article, but, well, OR just doesn't fly.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 07:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 *  - ''' Bali88 (talk) 06:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think the article is adequately sourced now that freddie has rewritten it. I think it's in keepable shape. Bali88 (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don't know about keeping that list either, because it seems like random users are just popping in and listing their favorite artist(s) who might be considered "hip hop soul".  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 07:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The two sources at the bottom are not available online; does anyone have access to them? CorporateM (Talk) 07:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * They aren't? That isn't a good sign...  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 00:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is that not "a good sign"? There is no Wikipedia policy that printed books are not a valid source, and if there were, it would be ridiculous. Either look through the diffs and determine who the editor was who added the references and contact them, or go hunt down a copy of the book someplace if you feel the need to verify it for this AfD. You cannot write an encyclopedia by only depending upon online sources; that is part of the issue with why so many Wikipedia articles are either limited in scope (and long on fluff) or incorrect.--FuriousFreddy (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. As a musical genre, I think it's bogus. Most of the Billboard hits relate to Mary J. Blige. I assume it was created as a promotional gimmick so she can be queen of something or other. See . The Satanic Sheik (talk) 08:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * On second thought, this lemma could be a redirect to Mary J. Blige. The Satanic Sheik (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that's probably the best solution. Bali88 (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a little debatable, but...I wouldn't object to it.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 17:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would. If, for whatever reason, hip hop soul isn't considered as valid a subgenre of music as, say, Viking metal, the proper redirect would be to new jack swing or contemporary R&B. The article, if you check, is heavily linked as a subgenre. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Not a notable subgenre. Koala15 (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article and the genre is notable too. 12.125.194.242 (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources to back that up? I think just about all of us are willing to vote to keep with additional proof of notability via sources. Bali88 (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep There are innumerable proper references (The Vibe History of Hop Hop has an entire chapter on hip-hop soul) that explain the history of hip hop soul and its distinctions from contemporary R&B and new jack swing (you gonna nominate that article too?). The problem is most of them are in actual books, something I know a lot of editors avoid. Be that as it may, quite a few usable internet resources turn up by running a search such as follows: "hip hop soul" "mary j blige" tlc. "hip hop soul" "blackstreet" or "hip hop soul" "jodeci" or "hip hop soul" "missy elliott" works as well (adding the key artists to the search results in finding the proper references - you're looking for music journalism). The term originated in promotion by Uptown Records for Mary J. Blige's first album (the same way Jerry Wexler made up the term rhythm and blues), but the style of music itself as evolved from new jack swing is its own distinct subgenre. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with the notability of the subject matter itself, but there is a heavy amount of OR here. Most of the entire final paragraph is a personal essay. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The lead has been written and sourced to establish validity and notability. More in-depth revisions to the body can be made after I get home and get out my copy of the Vibe book. If I can find enough references elsewhere to cover it, the article should be expanded to explain how hip-hop soul essentially usurped contemporary R&B and today (in 2014, not in 1994) basically describes what R&B is today.--FuriousFreddy (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I've rewritten the article, including references. There is room for growth and expansion, but this should be enough for now. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice job. Thanks for doing that. Bali88 (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2014 (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.