Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hit 'Em Up


 * 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hit &
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested PROD. Apart from the 2-sentence mention in Vibe (magazine) (the other 2 refs currently in the article are not at reliable sources), I could find no reliable independent sources about this. It didn't chart from what I can see, and I can see no evidence that this song meets the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 22:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  —--  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 22:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  —--  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 22:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, rather than list them all, just peruse through these GB results, certainly a lot written about it. - Theornamentalist (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you possible show a few of those that are at independent sources which are reliable and give significant coverage? Most of them are either non-reliable sites with the video, or lyrics sites. So, I'm not expecting you to list them all, just a few reliable ones! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 14:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I assume "GB" means Google books? You gave the Google Web search link (and a better one would be this one rather than the one you gave; GBooks is here, but all the mentions I could see were minor --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 14:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The link I gave was to Google books... as far as coverage, ha take a look, I chose this one (3rd result), and there's an entire page on this song (plus some which is unviewable), here's an entire Billboard article on the song.
 * As a side note, there is substantial coverage of 2Pac in general, entire books written about him and his music. I would not be surprised if nearly all his songs could meet Wikipedia's req. for articles, same as the Beatles. - Theornamentalist (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside my thoughts on comparing 2Pac to the Beatles (who have at least 13 songs with no articles on Wikipedia), the first book there ("Rebel for the hell of it") is about 2Pac, but the index of the book shows some coverage on 3 pages: I see no evidence of significant coverage: page 180: "Gilmore takes "Hit `Em Up" literally as Tupac's threat on the lives of anyone who's down with the East Coast"; page 182 ... "The only Tupac lyrics Gilmore quotes-and at length-is "Hit `Em Up"'s vituperation [quotes from the song]"; page 183 "The blunt, unimaginative threats of "Hit `Em Up" stand out to conventional music editors like a street mugging - a perfect opportunity to editorialize". With regard to the Billboard article, it is in fact only one column (10 paragraphs) - but most of that is about Tupac being unwise to release it, and the fact that it shouldn't be played on radio. Although superficially about the song, realistically it would (at most) be able to reference one or two of the sentences in that article - yet the vast majority of the information in the article is not mentioned in the Billboard article or in the book. So, I am still not convinced that the song meets the criteria for inclusion, other than as a single sentence (or two at most) in the main Tupac article --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 13:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This song could, while remaining tightly informative, be reduced to a few sentences and merged. On the other hand, I believe that it can be expanded into a very large, well sourced, individual article. There seems to be a multitude of sources available some brief, but some limited to just this song. I don't know when/if I can work on it, but I can try sometime soon. - Theornamentalist (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Update so I have some time tonight to look over, and (Steve, I'm not trying to stress the point in a roundabout way) there is a lot of work that this will take, and there are a lot of sources. I estimate that it will probably take me a week or so, maybe more; I will be working on it here, where I've copied the article, although instead of trying to find sources for it, I will likely be rewriting it based on what I read. If anyone wants to help, feel free to edit my sandbox. - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep The substantial coverage in this Google Books result and this Billboards article confirms that Hit 'Em Up passes Notability. Add that to the sources at User:Theornamentalist/Sandbox5 and notability is solidly established., your work at User:Theornamentalist/Sandbox5 is a spectacular improvement over the current article. You've done a phenomenal job! Cunard (talk) 07:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Some notes for improvement: "It has been called the center of the most venomous rap battle in the genre's history and the beginning of a war." Are any of these direct quotations from the citations you provided. If they are, they should be put in quotes.
 * During the month of May 1996 in Los Angeles, at a warehouse off of Slauson Avenue near Fox Hills Mall, The production company, Look Hear Productions,
 * This paragraph appears to be incomplete.
 * "The assistant, who was answering his pager, was returning personal calls and had even mistakenly lost it." – what did he lose? Did he lose his pager?

I've given your userspace draft a copyedit. When you copy it back to the mainspace, feel free to give me a ping if you want me to take another look at it. Cunard (talk) 07:31, 29 October 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.