Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American hip hop

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. Consensus is that this article is a content fork of Hip Hop. I will provide a user space copy of the article if anyone wants it to work on. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American hip hop[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to be an unsourced content fork from Hip hop music that cannot be salvaged or effectively merged. Hoppingalong (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep An unsourced article is not a worthy reason for deletion. Hip hop music should clearly cover hip hop from around the world yet American hip hop is a huge genre that should have its own article. Fix it if you think there is a problem rather than deleting it. No offence, but this is the most surprising AfD nomination I've ever seen! Smartse (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Hip Hop is American music. Having both articles is like having an article about both Salsa and Cuban Salsa or Bossa nova and Brasilian bossa nova or jazz and American jazz. I might agree that some of the other regional hip hop articles (e.g., Hip hop in the Dominican Republic) are acceptable because they focus on this American music as interpreted and played in other places (e.g., in another context there is Jazz in Germany). As they are, the American hip hop and hip hop articles are a content fork and not really a spinoff. I would be fine with fixing one and redirecting the other. It seems to me that it would be artificial and redundant to maintain two articles on the same subject. And speaking of inappropriate, please do not make edit histories like "Wtf." You will note on the talk page of the article that another editor indicated the article was so bad it should go to Afd. I don't exactly agree with that editor's reasoning, but this didn't come from nowhere. Assume good faith and make arguments based on WP guidelines rather than just saying what seems clear to you. I am certainly willing to see your point of view (and I acknowledge that this is not a slam dunk case). Try to do that for others. Hoppingalong (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just a bit shocked that you are considering deleting an article which it seems so obvious to me should exist, I am assuming good faith but I don't currently think that you have provided enough reasons as to why this article should be deleted. I agree that the article is in a bad state, but that means it should be edited to be into a better shape. It is true that hip-hop started in America but it has since spread around the world. To have all the articles in Template:Hip hop, but not an American hip hop article just does not make sense to me. I know British hip hop well and can't see how the hip hop article could be seen to cover all of hip hop if there was not a separate american hip hop article. The comment on the talk page you refer to was "It's just a random, unverified, and uncited list of hip hop artists" - this is not an argument for deletion as I have tried to explain, but a reason for improvement. Smartse (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The proper focus of this AfD is on whether or not this is a content fork and/or if that's appropriate. There's an obviously notable hip hop article, and American hip-hop is an obviously notable segment of that, but WP:FORK, is the relevant issue here. Shadowjams (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean WP:CFORK. Looking at that guideline it seems to me as though having a separate article is necessary (Wikipedia:Content_forking#Article_spinouts.C2.A0.E2.80.93_.22Summary_style.22_articles), can you please explain more on why it is a content fork and why it is not suitable to have a hip hop article summarising all forms of hip hop (much of which will be American) and to also have an article solely dealing with American hip hop? Smartse (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Hip hop music article goes into the history of the music, is sourced, and had pointer wikilinks to the various subregional varients of American hip hop. If the main Hip hop article talks about Hip hop writ large, and yet is specific enough to point to the East Coast hip hop, what would be added by having an American hip hop article? The regional discussion should go in the East Coast hip hop and its sibling articles, with the macro discussion going in the main Hip hop music article (keeping in mind there is also a Hip hop article dealing with more than just music). You wouldn't support a North American hip hop article to be a little more specific than Hip hop music but less specific than American hip hop, would you? Or a European Union hip hop? Or a Bristish Isles hip hop? It is not that I think American hip hop is unimportant. Rather, it is too important to let parallel articles grow-up to create content forks. I have just deleted most of the non-sourced material from the American hip hop article, but it is now little more than a small stub. My argument is that any additions to that article are either macro enough to go into the Hip hop article, or regional enough to go into an East Coast hip hop (or the same level) article. Hoppingalong (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smartse reverted the edit that I referenced in my last comment apparently so the old version is visible to editors debating the AfD (according to the edit summary, apparently not because of a disagreement over the substance of the edit). I just now reverted his reversion because it represented the reintroduction of entirely unsourced, opinion, and other problem text. So as not to hide the ball, here is a link to the old version of the article it was when I originally Afded the article. Here is a link to the cut-down version. Either way, I think the article should go. As it was it was a content fork, and as the cut down version could be improved it would inevitably become a content fork for the more general Hip hop music or for the regional hip hop articles such as East Coast hip hop-- which are about on the same level in a theoretical hierarchy with the other national hip hop music articles like British hip hop -- or a content fork from both. Hoppingalong (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nomination. Barely referenced, original version failed WP:OR WP:BLP WP:RS, content fork, etc. etc. This article if rewritten would have be hard pressed to not be based on individuals opinions like the old version failing WP:NPOV.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't sufficient grounds for deletion, but reasons for the article to be rewritten. I wish I had time but I really don't at the moment. I haven't seen anyone making an attempt to add sources to the article as should be done per WP:BEFORE. This article should summarise all the articles we have that cover american hip hop, there will be repitition of hip hop music and the east coast/west coast articles but I don't see why this is a problem. Smartse (talk) 11:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the article in it's current form is a POV fork, or if longer is unwarranted and unsalvagable as to require a rewrite, there is nothing wrong with deleting so that one can start from anew. Also, please tell me how I was supposed to adequately cite the many, many opinions, original research, and synthesis that was on the old version (long) of this article. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 21:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While hip hop is international at this point, it is still overwhelmingly dominated by American artists. I can see no reason for breaking this out. — Gwalla | Talk 19:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Unnecessary fork. No option for merging unreferenced text. Xuz (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.