Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of slang used in hip hop music


 * 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. Proto :: type  15:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

List of slang used in hip hop music

 * delete - is this supposed to be a joke? since when is wiki a slang glossary? 4.18GB 17:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep : among many, many other things: it's verifiable, hip-hop slang is presumably notable, and it's likely to be useful to many people. David Mestel(Talk) 18:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Change to Delete per below. David Mestel(Talk) 12:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's verifiable, yes. And slang is notable. But there is absolutely no reason to have a list of slang terms used in hip-hop music. If such a thing belongs anywhere, it's Wikitionary. -Amarkov babble 18:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * After further looking at it, I don't see how it's verifiable, either. Seeing as I've never heard of slang terms that are supposedly widespread where I live... -Amarkov babble 18:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:IKNOWIT is not the criterion for verifiability. It does cite multiple sources. David Mestel(Talk) 18:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right, although that's not entirely my point. Either way, it's a list of dictionary definitions, and has no hope of becoming more. Therefore, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. -Amarkov babble 18:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You have a point, unless perhaps it was trimmed down to include only those words with a non-dicdef article. I stand corrected. David Mestel(Talk) 12:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete From WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not...[l]ists of such definitions...usage guide[s] or slang and idiom guide[s]". This is a list of dictionary defintions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Definitions of words go in Wiktionary, encyclopaedia articles go in Wikipedia. This isn't difficult people. --  I sl a y So lo mo n  |  t a l k  19:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - 4.1GB has been making a lot of bad afd noms.Bakaman Bakatalk 20:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - i must say that is a wonderful argument for keeping it Bakasuprman 4.18GB 21:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You will have to provide a lot more explanation of what is "bad" about a nomination that is clearly rooted in our official policy, linked to in the rationale immediately above yours. Uncle G 21:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There are good arguments for keeping, but ad hominem is not one of them. David Mestel(Talk) 12:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. -- Kf4bdy talk contribs 02:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete -- may as well be a List of words used in shopping lists. Bubba hotep 12:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if there were words consistently and commonly used in shopping lists to mean specific things other than what they mean in normal English, then they would be comparable. David Mestel(Talk) 12:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Very useful to many people. Hip-hop Music is definitely notable. If I was a reader of an encyclopedia, I would definitely want to be able to read this article. -- ¿¡Exir  Kamalabadi?! Join Esperanza! 12:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment No, if you were the reader of a dictionary you would definitely want to read this article. -- I sl a y So lo mo n  |  t a l k  13:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * KEEP- the entire world is not privy to this sort of glossary of terms and therefore it may be of some use to someone, somewhere that comes across this article/entry. Mr M. P. D. Dawes 16:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC) Mr. MPD Dawes — Possible single purpose account: Mr M. P. D. Dawes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
 * An entire dictionary would be useful to someone, too. Doesn't mean that it belongs on Wikipedia. There are other places for dictionary definitions.
 * on a side note...it looks like Mr MPD Dawes is a newly created user...could be a dupe vote...4.18GB 17:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delizzle in agreement with IslaySolomon. Barno 17:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete; unsourced, unmaintainable, indiscriminate collection of information, etc. This list could obviously become quite huge if taken to its logical conclusion; e.g., Nigerian hip hop acts frequently use Nigerian pidgin slang terms in their songs, should we thus include a complete dictionary of Nigerian pidgin?  And then a Krio slang dictionary to cover terms used by rappers from Sierra Leone?  And the like with every other African creole that someone has released a hip hop album in?  ergot 21:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. utcursch | talk 13:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep -- it's a useful guide, maybe not the best one on the Web, but it's still worth maintaining. Yo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.38.196.225 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep The entry needs some more work but should stay. My students have used this entry to aid in their reports on slang and their origins.  And this is not a dupe.Ghetto Supersta 17:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Ghetto Supersta (talk • contribs)  has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
 * students?!? oh my............4.18GB 00:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete There seems to be a trend for listcruft recently. Lists are OK as long as they are maintainable. But this one is unsourced and unmaintainable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --SunStar Net 13:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It does not matter if it is useful. WP:NOT applies regardless of usefulness. -Amarkov babble 00:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep notabiliy is not a criteria for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.163.16 (talk • contribs)
 * Yes it is. I exist. Multiple reliable sources document my existence. Do I get to create an article on myself? -Amarkov babble 14:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per Sunstar Net and others. johnpseudo 15:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article's in awful shape.  That's no reason to delete it, but it certainly doesn't help.  What is a reason to delete it is that its subject is non-notable and non-verifiable. --Mr. Billion 05:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. What Bakaman said. --Pumpkin Pie 22:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: If you think this article should not be deleted, argue the merits of the article, not the history of the nominator. This should not be personal. johnpseudo 04:32, 6 November 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.