Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam and hip hop in the United States

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. Sufficiently good arguments to keep, though a cleanup will be helpful. Tone 17:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and hip hop in the United States

Islam and hip hop in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article is very detailed, but reliant on background information and while sourced the sources only detail specific individual facts, not the argument that the article is trying to make which relies on synthesis and personal opinion. I would be very surprised if the genesis was not a college paper that was then half-assed wikified. JesseRafe (talk) 12:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JesseRafe (talk) 12:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. JesseRafe (talk) 12:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. JesseRafe (talk) 12:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. JesseRafe (talk) 12:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. JesseRafe (talk) 12:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. JesseRafe (talk) 12:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The relationship between Islam and hip hop is encyclopedic, but this article fails NPOV and NOR. This article starts off with a theory section which is mostly SYNTH of sources that don't talk about Islam and hip hop. It then lists some Muslim musicians and gives short biographies. It includes in that list individuals whose religion doesn't inform their music and individuals with little or no collection to the US (for instance, the Jihadi rappers section). In the interest of preserve, I'll point out that the biographies on this page are generally shorter and less informative than the biographies present on the musicians' pages. As a note: a list of Muslim musicians exists, List of American Muslims#Music and there is a related disambiguation page, Islamic hip hop. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This page, was created in 2017 by a user who has not edited since 2017. It had had a light cleanup a while back, but it has not been moved from being mere SYNTH towards a minimal level of acceptability despite being heavily tagged since 2017. I would change my opinion to USERFY if someone is willing to take it on. Failing that , we need to delete this
  WP:ESSAY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. While the article may have some OR/synthesis issues, it also seems to have good content, like history. The topic is notable, and AfD =/= not cleanup, and this doesn't seem to be a mess in need of
  WP:TNT. This can remain tagged until someone who cares rewrites it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I BOLDLY deleted the lede, replacing it with a single, brief sentence. and deleted the section that amounted to a
  WP:ESSAY on critical race theory, material ans sources thata were not related to hip-hop, as Nom says above, What is left is a page offering a poorly-sourced, chronological list of Hip-hop artists who practice some form of Islam. I note that not all are in the U.S., and title should probably bee moved ot reflect this. Page remains substandard, and desperately in need of an editor. But topic does appear to be notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I agree an article with this title would be encyclopedic, but it isn't clear to me that the article is actually about that title. It was an awkward SYNTH, and what is left is an annotated, unfocused list. There are plenty of sources that could be used to create an article with this title or a list with contents paired down under another title, but I don't see a need to !vote keep for an article which doesn't mach the title and fails NOR and NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:08, 6 June 2019 (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.