Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detroit 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 per

• Keep - There are in fact plenty of reputable sources about "Detroit hip hop." [1] End of story. --Oakshade (talk) 05:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per Oakshade; there are sources suggesting that Detroit may have an independent and notable hip-hop subculture. This seems to convey some
  talk  05:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - people/groups like Insane Clown Posse, Esham, and to a different degree, Eminem, (and many more, but this is not my forte) are representatives of Detroit hip hop, a legitimate genre Theserialcomma (talk) 05:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the text of the article and Theserialcomma's argument above convince me that 'Detroit hip-hop' is absolutely notable, verifiable, and a distinct sub-culture of a popular form of music. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The title of the article is a good way to get publicity for detroithiphop.com. GregManninLB (talk) 06:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rewrite. The current state of the article is atrocious, but
  WP:HEY now it just needs to be rewritten. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 15:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I have no opinion or knowledge of the genre but the article seems to be a blatant violation of
  talk • contribs) 16:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Articles on topics in newspapers and magazines are what in fact establish
    reliable sources on this topic to write an article about based on those sources.[2] I don't subscribe to the "We must kill this article in order to save it" mentality. --Oakshade (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • This is not a list of reliable sources to verify the existence of a music genre called Detroit hip hop. It is a list of articles containing the words Detroit hip hop, not even neccessarily in that order, which could mean about a trillion different things. Examples:
      • This article is about Kwame Kilpatrick containing the popular reference hip hop mayor of Detroit.
      • This article is included in the list of hits because of this sentence: ...death of Detroit rapper Proof has hip-hop artists and fans asking if rap produces violence.... Again, nothing about a genre of music called Detroit hip hop.
      • This article speaks of a Detroit hip hop scene. Every major urban area in the united states has a hip hop scene but having a hip hop scene does not mean that there is also an entire genre of music spawned from that scene.
      • This article is about an event called Detroit hip-hop summit. The name of the event is not an explicit confirmation of the existence of a music genre.
      • This article is about a rapper from Detroit performing in Europe. There is no mention in the article of any kind of a music genre. In fact, the words Detroit and hip hop never even appear in the same sentence.
    • Bottom line about the sources you have presented is this:
      1. The Google search from above is inconclusive as it returns a variety of related and unrelated articles.
      2. The existence of a music scene does not guarantee the existence of a music genre native to that scene. Hip-hop from Detroit does not mean Detroit hip hop as put forward by the article.
      3. There is a complete lack of references from
         talk • contribs) 18:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
         ]
      • • Cherry picking articles that are not primarily about Detroit Hip Hop and then falsely claiming that no articles exist about Detroit Hip Hop makes it hard to
          assume you're editing in good faith
          . I can't believe I need to explain this but here it goes: Just because some articles in a google news search are not about Detroit Hip Hop does not invalidate the many articles that are about Detroit Hip Hop. Showing the search was to demonstrate that many secondary sources exist on Detroit Hip Hop, not every one in the search. I thought that was obvious.
          • This article entitled "What's next for Detroit hip-hop?: Shell-shocked by deaths and negative publicity, rappers ponder a future of making music without the guidance of Proof and Jay Dee." is about Detroit Hip Hop.
          • This article entitled "Detroit's strong hip-hop scene finally is getting its act together" is about Detroit Hip Hop.
          • This article entitled Detroit hip-hop goes national - Homegrown talents find the winning..." is about Detroit Hip Hop.
          • This article entitled "Outrageously violent lyrics define Detroit's hardcore hip-hop scene" is about Detroit Hip Hop.
          • This article entitled "Street Beatz: What REAL Detroit hip-hop is all about" is about Detroit Hip Hop.
        • These are only some of the articles found on that google news search that are about Detroit Hip Hop. And yes, even as a "scene," Detroit Hip Hop is notable as you have pointed out an article about it. --Oakshade (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for explaining to me that those are only some of the articles found in that search immediately after i c-l-e-a-r-l-y stated that I'm listing examples (one could argue that "examples"="some") of why your search is inconclusive. You presented no specific article to prove your point but a link to a Google search. Since I'm taking the opposing stance to yours, I presented loopholes in your theory as possible proof of lack of reliable sources by (wait for it) "cherry picking" examples from your Google search because I was actually trying to find articles that do not conform to your theory. Even so, I admitted that there are articles speaking of hip hop from Detroit and Detroit hip hop scene which still in no way explicitly states (not implies) that a genre of music called Detroit hip hop exists yet you still provide links to me for those same articles. Kudos! By the way, excellent job on keeping focus on discussing the article and sources instead of discussing me, the editor. If you can pardon my preceding sarcasm, I still assume nothing but the utmost good faith from you because I can't possibly imagine thinking, simply because your opinion differs from mine, that you are working towards any goal other than improving Wikipedia. A very sarcastic Thank You for assuming that my goal here is something other that
            talk • contribs) 20:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
            ]
• Delete. On second thought I am changing my !vote to DELETE per the compelling arguments put forward by SWik78. The present article is a blatant violation of our Wikipedia:No original research policy, carries a harsh point of view unsupported by third party sources and should be deleted if this cannot be resolved. Perhaps this can be rescued ala WP:HEY, but if not policy requires that this be removed. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment some more artists that may be considered to represent 'detroit hip hop' are Black Milk, Fat Ray, Phat Kat, Guilty Simpson, and Uncle Ill (some of these artists may not have wikis, as they vary from being detroit underground rappers, to successful artists. also, see [[3]] for an interview where the detroit hip hop scene is discussed . for a more accurate google search about detroit hip hop, try searching (with quotes) "detroit hip hop scene". i see 2,230 results for that exact phrase. i am not from detroit, nor do i like hip hop particularly, but i have heard many references in my life to the hip hop and rap scene in detroit. this is not an encyclopedic testimony or evidence, just a note of my personal experience. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, a hip hop scene exists in every major city in the United states and Detroit is no exception. I'm contending that a "music scene" and a "music genre" are not the same thing. The article in question is presenting a case for the existence of the music genre called Detroit hip hop. There is a difference between the two.
    talk • contribs) 19:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep. If this article is deleted, then so should
  Houston hip hop, & Chicago hip hop. "Detroit hip hop" is not a genre--it is a scene. See Canterbury scene for articles about a scene around a town or city. This article also just serves as List of hip hop musicians from Detroit, Michigan, just like on the pages I mentioned. Delete articles about fictional things. This is a real thing. Cosprings (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The emphasis on Wikipedia is
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument does not work. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • from detroithiphop.net we find the phrase "A lot of times people try to pigeon-hole Detroit Hip Hop’s sound." to me, this quote legitimizes the fact that there might be a specific detroit hip hop sound, making it distinct from other genres of hip hop. and [[4]] according to this interview at realdetroitweekly.com [[5]] with J Dilla "I say that Michigan (especially Detroit) has it's (sic) own sound." hiphopgame.com [[6]] mentions "keeping that classic Detroit hip-hop sound alive." i think my point is, there is a legitimate claim that detroit hip hop has a distinct sound, which i believe would qualify it as a genre. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand that this article will probably be kept despite my opinion of its worthyness or the lack thereof. You actually make a good point, Serial, but hiphopgame.com, detroithiphop.net and realdetroitweekly.com fail
      talk • contribs) 20:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • As far I know, your belief that articles can be in violation of WP:OR to the point that they warrant deletion and rewrite is just a personal preference and not a policy of wikipedia. Anyone can blank the content of an article and rewrite it if necessary - and I have done so myself a few times - but deleting an article not only remove the content but the edit history and talk page as well. I don't think that's something that should be done if it can be avoided. The example you provided appears to be more of an exception than a rule and I note that the article has not been recreated in that instance. It was also the subject of edit wars and controversy that this article is not subjected to. --Bardin (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • In all fairness, I specifically used the words I also do believe rather than I also know it to be official policy for a reason and that is to make sure than I'm not trying to misrepresent my opinion for something other than just that - opinion - by attributing more importance to it. It's my opinion that we're here to document something that's been researched and published by someone else rather than to do our own research on a subject we would like to see includeed and then subsequently tweak and edit it until it can marginally pass our official policies and guidelines. I believe this article to fall into the category of such original research due to the fact that even once all of the links provided by Oakshade are taken into consideration, I have not been able to find a single one that actually explains what Detroit hip hop is. There are plenty of them that speak of an artist being a memeber of the scene (not genre but scene) but there is nothing about the genre itself. If I could have a
          talk • contribs) 15:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • I get the impression from this AFD that it is more of a scene than a genre. Even if there is nothing that separates the music of Detroit hip hop from "mainstream hip hop", as you put it, there's still a separate history which might be out of place in an article on "mainstream hip hop". I note though that one of the sources cited by Oakshade above is titled "Outrageously violent lyrics define Detroit's hardcore hip-hop scene". Seems like a good starting point to flesh this article out. --Bardin (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The articles cited by Oakshade are enough to convince me that this subject is both legitimate and notable enough for an article on wikipedia. The article might not be verified at present but the existence of sources indicate that it is verifiable. Violating
  grounds for improvement. --Bardin (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • A point about your argument that violating
    talk • contribs) 14:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources is not the same thing as articles that contain original research. If we delete all articles that contain original research, there would be no need for this tag. --Bardin (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps, but I was just arguing the point you made about OR not being valid grounds for deletion when official policy cleary lists it as such.
        talk • contribs) 15:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Keep clearly verifiable hip hop scene of high cultural significance. Plenty of research out there already on this, only some of which has been dug up by previous editors (remember, your best friends - libraries - are offline). Chubbles (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. AFD is whether there is a possible of a legitimate article from the muck. The NOR policy is about the article content itself. Just like an article about Bill Gates would not suddenly be worthy of deletion if it became suddenly filled with original research, they are two separate points. I agree with SWik78 that people seem to be violating
  WP:SYNTHESIS in large part to create this article but I want to make it look like something first. There are two sources right now (and one is a dead link), (in either version), which is really low given the possible topic size. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Result: There is no consensus here, the article cannot be deleted. This article, like a majority of articles, has little references, if any. That does not mean that any of the information is original research, or unverifiable. There are thousands of articles like this one with a references/cleanup tag at the top and that's all is needed. Eventually the article will be good and well-referenced. I don't think I'm jumping the gun in just putting a cleanup tag at the top and removing the delete tag.Cosprings (talk) 02:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lack of sources and encyclopedic value. This deserves perhaps a sentence in a larger article. You said it Dad (talk) 04:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]