Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swagghop


 * 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. Courcelles 07:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Swagghop

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

I prodded this article myself by saying it sounded like a genre that was invented on the spot, but then I brought it to AfD instead after learning that my instincts were right. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- Kudpung (talk) 07:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- Kudpung (talk) 07:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  -- Kudpung (talk) 07:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Page should really have been a speedy  deletion at CSD A7. This genre by the article author's own admission is recently created. Nothing as new as that can possibly have accumulated sufficient notability for an entry in an encyclopedia. Very sorry but it fails our criteria for inclusion on multiple issues such  as :WP:BAND, WP:MUSIC, WP:GNG, WP:NOTABILITY and is completely  unsourced apart from  sel-published materia. WP:RS, WP:V, WP:CITE. --Kudpung (talk) 07:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I think this just slips by CSD because it does explain (albeit poorly) what the supposed genre entails. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as hoax. Falsely claims that this just-created genre with one extremely obscure performer is "quickly becoming one of the most popular around". Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete: Not a hoax, but clearly not notable as of yet. The wider picture is that "Bishop B (now known as Bishop Swagghop)" is a DIY artist touting their own style. As for sources - The main one is their Reverbnation - Bishop Swagghop self created artist page. It contains is the same basic bio found at Our stage - Mr.Swagghop, tinychat - Swagghop Entertainment (Click on the "Description" tab) and Mr. Swagghop - Myspace page. Variations can be found at Bishop B - Myspace and Bishop Swagghop - Facebook. They have a Twitter account and they also have a U.K facebook page where they recently boasted "WHILE YALL PASSING OUT MIXTAPES IM GETTING HEARD ALL OVER THE GLOBE!" and the next day claimed "Finally made #1 in HipHop in the Twin Cities." I find no independent sources to back that up however. The only thing I could find that comes close to be an "independent" source is Unsigned Hype Bishop SwaggHop, but is it a WP:RS? And even it it were I don't feel one interview on a website that seems to feature indy/unsigned artists is enough. And when all is said and done - the article being discussed is not about the "artist" Bishop Swagghop, it is about the "Genre of music" called Swagghop. And on that I can find not find anything that comes close to meeting Notability guidelines. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Looking at the sources provided by Soundvisions1 none of them are good. The conclusion found above is right. No meeting Notability guidelines here. Nothing but promotion here. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:MADEUP/WP:NEO --Closeapple (talk) 05:16, 19 November 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.