Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twin Cities 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.

Twin Cities hip hop

Twin Cities hip hop (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)

Unsourced affair that acts as advertisement and coat rack. The Banner talk 09:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails
  Twin Cities hip hop" to any more notable than hip hop anywhere else. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This actually seems to be a thing. Here's an entire chapter about it, an article in the Star Tribune, an article in the A.V. Club about the same thing, another Star Tribune article that proclaims that TCHH is no longer underground, and apparently someone named Prof is bringing a taste of it to you. I could probably come up with more, but that's enough for me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Other than the introduction to the article needing work it looks good to me. Substantially covered in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and fix. Happy to change my opinion per the sources brought forward. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:59, 24 September 2013 (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.