This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Albums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles Hip hop Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip hopHip hop articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Changed article back to its original meaning after the article was hijacked from a redirect to Esham months ago, as the page listed at simply "Acid Rap" should be something that was first (and is most closely) associated with Acid Rap, a term coined by Esham. Ben0kto (talk) 06:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not necessarily. We need to also establish that the genre is independently notable outside of the performer. So far all most of the mentions of the genre mention it as a side note in relation to the performer. The thing about notability for anything is that notability is not inherited by the genre getting created by a notable person or being performed by notable persons. It exists, but existing is not notability. I really wish that you'd have talked this out before doing all of this. Maybe it would have ended in a way that you liked, maybe not. Either way, this has gone from what would've been a relatively minor thing to something that has ballooned into a much larger incident. You're somewhat new, but you've been warned enough to where you can't really claim ignorance on any of this. I'm proposing a merge into the main article for Esham, as I can't see where this genre has notability independent of the artist. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• This is exactly is why the article shouldn't have been hijacked from its original redirect. I am not claiming ignorance on a subject I know enough about to create a Wikipedia article for it when I see the existing one is wrong. If you want to talk about my editing mistakes, please bring those up on my talk page. Ben0kto (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I've tried and others have tried. The thing about this is that you've been warned several times in excruciating detail as to why the edits are seen as controversial and that other editors object to the move. When other editors object to large and controversial edits, that's when you stop and try to talk it out with them rather than continue to make the controversial edits- especially if you feel that you are not experienced or well versed in various guidelines on Wikipedia. Whether something is older or whether or not this started as a redirect to something else, that doesn't always mean that the basic article name should be for the older item. It's very, very common on Wikipedia for something that is considered to be more notable (meaning that something has received more coverage than the other subject in question), that the subject in question remains at the name of the article. If you believe that something is more notable, bring it up here first rather than try to delete or move the article currently in the namespace. First work on showing that this is notable outside of the artist and prove that by reliable sources that focus in-depth on this genre apart from its creator. If you are unsure as to what a reliable source is, create the article in your sandbox or userspace first and ask people to weigh in on it. Creating an article in the mainspace and trying to hijack an established article, then trying to claim ignorance of rules is not an excuse after you've been warned as many times as you have been. And you have been warned- I've posted to your page multiple times about notability, what a reliable source is, and so on. Others have warned you about revert wars and you've been blocked for that very reason. At this point you should really be asking whether or not you're the one in the wrong here, rather than insisting that you are doing nothing wrong by way of "firsties" or "this is older" or "I didn't know". Sometimes if a mixtape has notability where a genre doesn't, it's fully reasonable to create the article for the mixtape at the redirect. Granted, they should have created a redirect at Acid Rap (genre) in that instance, but creating an article at the redirect isn't always the wrong move. If they had created an article with (mixtape) or (album) at the end, it's entirely possible that the article would have been moved here anyway since it makes more sense to have an article at the basic name than to have a redirect. It's incredibly common and I see people doing this all the time. We even have a speedy for just that purpose. In any case, at that point you should have created the article at Acid Rap (genre) and then lobbied to have the page moved here. Even if you weren't aware of this initially, you should have at some point realized that your actions were seen as incorrect when an older, more experienced editor reverted the edits several times. Like I said before, that's when you should start asking yourself if you are the person in the wrong, as you are not as potentially aware of editing rules as the more experienced editor might be. Continuing with the actions that have led to you being blocked and the pages deleted isn't really the wisest or best course of action. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In any case, even if this is kept the page would have to be changed to Acid rap for capitalization issues. I note that there has already been a merge discussion that ended with the page getting merged into the artist's article. I'll open up a new merger proposal since it's been some time since then, but I doubt it'll end differently. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (Please see Talk:Acid_Rap#Mainstream_sources regarding this). Ben0kto (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If an article on the genre Acid Rap is to be created, there must be Reliable sources that clearly establish its notability. This means published sources that are independent of any particular artist or vendor, and that have some sort of editorial process so that things are checked before they are published. This means that blogs are out, as are user reviews, and most Youtube content. Coverage should be more than trivial, this means that a mere mention that the genre exists or that a particular work is part of the genre is not enough. There should be several such sources, each independent of the others. If such sources can be found, the article can and should be created, then we can discuss the exact name. If Ben0kto has sources that he thinks are good enough to support an article, i strongly suggest that the sources be listed here (with links unless they are off-line sources), and then other editors can consider and discuss them. DES ^(talk) 16:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here is the spot to question whether or not acid rap as a genre should merit its own article. If we decide whether or not it should have its own article, then we can decide what should belong at the specific entry of "Acid Rap". I personally feel that the subject has not been really talked about outside of the artist Esham. I can see where it exists, has been performed, and is mentioned, but I don't see any in-depth coverage of the musical genre. Existing is not notability and we need at least a few in-depth sources that talk about the genre to really show notability. For argument's sake, I'll say this here: listing database entries that show that something falls within a genre does not count towards notability. It shows that the genre exists. Also, a primary source or a blog source commenting on the genre does not count either. A reliable source would be something along the lines of say, XXL writing an in-depth article about the genre. This doesn't mean that Esham can't be mentioned in the article, but he should not be the sole or primary focus of the source in question. Another example would be a book that goes into depth about the genre but like the example above, does not do so in passing or briefly in relation to Esham. I simply can't find that there are any sources of this nature out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought I'd list the sources I've found, most of which mention the genre almost solely in relation to Esham. The thing to remember here is that we're looking for things that are in-depth, which means that it does more than mention it in passing in relation to Esham or to another artist. We need something along the lines of How to Rap, which goes into detail about rap in general, High Lonesome, an academic text that looks at country music, or Hip Hop and Horror, which discusses horrorcore. Newspaper articles can be good as well, but they'd have to go into depth about the genre and not predominantly talk about its creator Esham. That seems to be by large the biggest issue with the previous merger discussion and it looks to still remain the predominant issue here. The basic thing is that we need to show that there has been enough in-depth coverage to merit an article outside of Esham#Style. So far I'm not seeing much to show that this really merits its own article at this point in time.

In any case, this highlights the issues I've had with trying to show that acid rap merits an article outside of Esham. I've yet to find anything that mentions acid rap without it being predominantly about Esham and how he has influenced others. The genre might have been around for a while, but I'm not finding where it merits its own article. Sometimes things can exist for a long time yet never garner any sources to where they merit an article outside of their creator. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am a direct source. I am from the Detroit underground acid rap scene. If you dont think its an actual genre you are deluded. Not only is it a style, its a major style as artists like Kid Rock and Eminem demonstrate. As these artists out-grew the scene they dropped the name because it was too underground and mainstream audiences dont get it. Its absurd that a single 3rd rate rapper would squat on a major genre and a bunch of know nothing experts on wikipedia would fall for a third rate marketing scheme. No acid rap is not Esham. He was a major influence on the sound and his label helped organize the scene, but the genre was a confluence of horrorcore and comedy rap influences that were popular at the time as well as underground rock rap acts like Wig. While the self identifying Acid Rap genre acts stand out with the more obvious tropes, the cultural sphere of the genre was larger and included Detroit shock comedy rap like Grand Poohbahs, as well as those influenced by Detroit Acid rap transplants. LA acts either consciously or unwittingly influenced by the genre include Medfly, Mickey Avalon, Shapeshifters, Orgasmo, Lovecrat Technologies, and Hawd GankStuh Rappuh Emceez Wid Gatz.

• My issue wasn't that it isn't a genre, as much as whether or not the genre merits its own article specifically outside of its creator. We cannot accept the say so of a random person coming on to Wikipedia- this needs to be covered in independent and reliable sources like academic texts, newspapers, and the like. Also be extremely careful about your tone since it's extremely WP:BITE-y. I know that this is an old post but I want to make sure that people know that doing this is not acceptable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think its truly a shame that some clown names his album "acid rap" and an entire rap genre gets swept under the rug. I'm reverting the page, because the article was clearly hijacked. -Rob^talk 14:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Though I'm not sure who will be visiting this 7-year-old discussion (or even the most recent one from 5 years ago), there are two topics here: Acid Rap and Acid rap. History of the pages aside, both pages can coexist, with hatnotes to clarify and I've updated them as such. Blanking an article is in not an appropriate way to handle this dispute; sine consensus can change, a new discussion should have been started to get to address the concerns. —Ost (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Create new Acid Rap genre article per WP:MUSIC, without adding “genre” in parentheses, or redirect “Acid Rap” to (or merge with) Esham per WP:MERGE, as this definition is the most fitting, most recognized, most influential, most official^[1] and most relevant (per WP:REL) notable musical reference associated with the term Acid Rap, owned (or copyrighted^[2]) by Detroit rapper Esham. Existing isn’t notability but third-party text,^[3] news and web references^[4] from notable Horrorcore and Acid Rap specialists and reliable external media and newspaper article coverage^[5] is (per WP:SOURCES). Thousands upon thousands of albums are categorized by adding “album” in parentheses (per WP:ALBUMS), not the other way around; a few favorable mixtape reviews from magazine and music critics and a few bootleg downloads do not establish that the mixtape “Acid Rap” is necessarily notable (WP:RS) at all, widely known, influential, famous, or that it even deserves an article in the first place, especially in place of the article for “Acid Rap” that already existed as a redirect which was hijacked months ago.
• OK, here's a rundown of the sources. Many of these you've linked to twice, so I won't go over the same source again if you've tried to link to it twice.

Now we have two problems here. First, you insist that the genre has independent notability from Esham. Second, you're insisting that it have "top billing" so to speak. The problem here is that we're having a lot of trouble showing that this is independently notable outside of Esham. I'm not arguing it's a genre, but in the end I can't see where it's wildly notable outside of Esham. I also have to argue over the search term. The problem is that when we list things by name we have to consider what is the more likely search topic. In this case we have to go by how much coverage each subject has. We have one that's a fairly obscure genre of music and then we have an album that's also slightly obscure as far as "mainstream music" goes, but has received an enormous amount of coverage that dwarfs the genre's hits by a longshot. It's far, far more likely that people typing in simply "Acid Rap" will be expecting to find the album rather than the genre itself. As such, that's what the main article should be: the album. Even if we could justify unmerging the genre of acid rap from Esham's article, in the end the most likely search topic would be the album and that's what the main article should be. I'll again repeat my example of Michael Jackson: We have several people by that name, many of which were active and alive before the singer was a twinkle in Tito's eye. However the singer is the far more likely search subject, so he's what will be found at the main article. This is how things have operated on Wikipedia for quite some time now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Acid_Rap#Notability my for my naming example. It requires references (or lack thereof) to determine whether a subject is obscure or not. Ben0kto (talk) 00:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, an artist or subject is notable if they (or it) had a major influence on the development of a notable musical style such as horrorcore. Existing is not notability, but influence on and creation of notable music (see wicked shit) is (per WP:MUSIC). An artist, rapper or performer has to actually further establish themselves in a music scene^[1] to become more notable (see underground music), or for their work to become more notably (or nationally) recognized by simply its own name without trouble, if something or someone else with the same name (e.g. Soulja Boy vs. Mo Thugs’ Souljah Boy) already exists. A few favorable magazine reviews of a fairly new unknown rapper to the music industry with a limited catalog of 2 releases, one with no article, does not merit enough notability for his mixtape, official or unofficial, to take the place of an already existing page for an already existing, developed, recognized and referenced term which is more than distinctly defined and sourced (see Esham). The problem here is that you are leaving out and ignoring both clear facts and notable sources, such as the texts cited.

• Mastamind is also another notable Acid Rap performer and musical artist with at least 10 independent Acid Rap releases under his belt, whose 2012 acid rap release can also be referenced from external third party underground entertainment news source Faygo Luvers, where it was reviewed.^[2] Remember, external third party musical reviews do count as online sources.
• Insane Clown Posse (adopted elements of the rapping style, see Text)
• Natas (group), notable Acid rap group^{[3] [4] [5]}

^{[6] [7] [8] [8] [9] [10] [11][12] [4][4][11] [3][13]}

• Eminem (influenced by Natas) ^[3] Kid Rock (influenced by Natas),^[3] Kottonmouth Kings^[9] influenced by Esham's "metal sound", see also Korn, Limp Bizkit and Everlast^{[9][citation needed]}
• Dice^{[14][15] [15][16]}

^{[17] [18] [14] [15][16] [14] [19][20] [20] [14][15] [21] [22]} is yet another acid rap artist who is most notably associated with the genre for appearing on Mastamind's first independent solo release, Lickkuiddrano; Natas' Doubelievengod; and his own independent acid rap^{[15] [16]} release (produced by Esham), The Neighborhoodshittalka. To say that the genre doesn't exist or isn't notable outside of Esham is complete nonsense, but to say that it doesn't exist or isn't notable outside of early 1990's Detroit hip hop artists would be a wise statement. Ben0kto (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Book Behind the Paint by Joseph Bruce is a notable third party text reference to Acid Rap which does more than mention the existence of “Acid Rap”, but also explains how Esham adapted the horror style, and how he made Acid Rap “his own” and also that the style of Acid Rap he created along with other Detroit artists and their styles, such as Kid Rock, had an influence on Bruce, Insane Clown Posse, how they “came up with [their] style of rap”,^[1] the creditable influence on wicked shit and the adaption of horrorcore music, most notably in the process of the creation of groups like Insane Clown Posse. Detroit newspaper reference Metro Times also does more than just mention Acid rap’s existence, but gives a profile on Esham and the ‘acid rap scene’, defining acid rap as something that is labeled horrorcore by the media.^[2] Stop mentioning blog entries, forum posts, social media and merchant sites as my sources. Those were quickly removed.

It is unfair to seek only mainstream music sources such as magazine reviews from XXL Magazine or Rolling Stone when the topic of discussion is underground music that mainstream pop music critics rarely find favorable. You are mixing up your music styles and source types. Books and third party print references are the most reliable and notable sources for coverage, and the coverage shows much more than just mentioning “Acid Rap” (both words capitalized), but describes in detail about how Esham originated and named the style, its roots in Geto Boys’ horror songs,^[3] the ‘acid rap scene’,^[4] its transformation and adaption, and the brainstorming that lead to the naming, birth and creation of the group Insane Clown Posse. There are no third party textbook references to support the contrary claim that simply “Acid Rap” is from 2013. The online mixtape reviews cited do not stand up to textbook references and lack establishment of notability. Again, STOP mentioning blog entries, forum posts, social media and merchant sites as my sources as they were quickly removed. All known available sources for related genre associates including all text references establishing all of the associated artists’ notability will be added in support of the article. This is not a contest for which subject can be factually (or statistically) sourced by mainstream magazines and music reviews the most. The question is which subject is realistically the most notable, influential, historic, or otherwise famous in order to be considered most highly and significantly associated with the simple underground term “Acid Rap”.

• Esham^[5]

^{[6] [7] [8] [6] [6][7] [9] [9] [5][10] [5][7] [10]} Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). ^{[11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16][17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [12][22] [22][23][24]}

• Carnival Of Carnage

^{[25] [5] [26] [5][27] [28] [29] [30]}

• Behind the Paint ^[31]

• Mastamind^[32]

^{[32][33][34] [35] [36] [34]}

• Kid Rock^[37]

• Natas (group) ^{[34] [5] [12]}

^{[38] [8] [7] [7] [39] [36] [40][41] [5][5][40] [34][11]}

• Dice (rapper) ^{[42][43] [43][44]}

^{[35] [45] [42] [43][44] [42] [46][47] [47] [42][43] [48] [49]}

• Underground music^[50]

• Horrorcore

• Underground hip hop

• Devil Shit

On a side note, I tend to notice other Wikipedia articles citing forum and social media references with no problems, for example the references on Death Rap. It would be wise to have that changed when noticed or to ensure the encyclopedia isn’t contradicting its own rules regarding sources.

I will resume making constructive new edits (not revisions or reverts) to the article until a consensus is reached as long as there remains no objection below, to avoid making edits that may be seen as controversial or spark an edit war (posting within 24 hrs. per WP:BRD WP:EW and WP:EP guidelines). To be fair, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that ‘’’anyone’’’ can edit so I need to ensure all of the information I see here is factually accurate, even if it seems obvious. I hate to seem like too much of a genre warrior but making simple good faith edits has turned into a bit of a challenge due to a couple of users who keep on insisting that Acid Rap is from 2013 and just won’t let go of the idea or provide any reliable, factual or notable textbook reasons or references to show evidence for the claim, other than sourcing a few random online mixtape reviews and repeatedly attacking my usage of improper web references that were removed days ago. I am trying to discuss textbook^[1] facts and copyright^[2] here from a neutral point of view and your opinion and feelings on the supposed notability of the actual subject, as well as your apparent personal attacks on my beginner editing abilities and blocks upon several admins’ request, are no longer necessary and are making it harder and harder to believe that the two users who continue to team up and revert the article are in fact coming from the same neutral point of view and may be possibly coming from an opinionated and pop music oriented biased standpoint, disregarding and ignoring every constructive contribution I have made including all facts and text references as well as neglecting to leave much (if any) actual valuable or helpful information on the Talk page and becoming less and less credible by continuing to point out long deleted non-reliable sources which no longer exist as current flaws in the article and information itself.

This article is to be redirected, or changed back to its original meaning, after it was hijacked from a redirect to Esham months ago, as the page listed at simply "Acid Rap" should be the subject that was first, and is most highly and significantly, associated with Acid Rap, a term coined, created, owned^[3] and most notably popularized and made relevant by Esham (per WP:FACTS AND based on reliable verifiable textbook evidence).

There is no verifiable evidence to support the contrary claim (WP:NOR) that simply Acid Rap never existed or was never notable/relevant until a mixtape made months ago. Website reviews such as the ones provided, of an online mixtape with no known existing hard copies, do not count as standalone proof to support the claim that Acid Rap was never around or notable before an album was named after the term. Again, no reliable, factual, notable or otherwise credible textbook reasons or references to show evidence for this claim have been provided. Albums such as this one should be categorized by adding “album” in parentheses (like this: Acid Rap (album)) or merged with the artist’s page when their title is that of an already existing noteworthy subject. Ben0kto (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not saying that acid rap never existed. I'm not saying that it doesn't merit a mention somewhere. What I'm saying is that the subject has not been the focus of enough reliable in-depth coverage to merit an article, let alone to have the main title for "acid rap". I've tried explaining this in depth quite thoroughly, which you seem to be ignoring. Now you're trying to claim that I have some sort of agenda against underground music, which I'll warn you is not a wise accusation to make, as it essentially says I'm editing in bad faith... which I'm not. If you run around accusing other people of bad faith just because their viewpoints don't match up with yours, then that makes others assume bad faith on your end. The long and short of this is that the genre is older, but is not as notable as the album is. I've yet to find any sources that really show a huge amount of notability outside of Esham, let alone that the genre is more likely to be the focus of a search for "acid rap" here on Wikipedia. I'm more prone to believe that the album will be the likely search term. We can always put a note at the top of the article to redirect anyone else to Esham's article. That's more than reasonable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I see your article edits on the article as mainstream biased, not in "bad faith"; but your angry pleads on my talk page concerning my immediate skills and intelligence or willingness to cooperate, rather than than informative paragraphs concerning both CORRECT sourcing (not websites) and proper editing, appear to be blatantly ignoring some of the key points I'm trying to make. As far as putting a note at the top, I would be more than happy with that in regard to separating and disambiguating the two subjects. However, there still remain no reliable, factual, notable or otherwise credible textbook reasons or references to show evidence for the claim that the term Acid Rap is more notably related to, more highly recognized or more commonly referenced in relation to Chance the Rapper than Esham so the album should be moved or redirected to Acid Rap (album) per WP:ALBUMS. Ben0kto (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saying reliable sources have a mainstream bias is ridiculous. If the sub-subgenre was notable, it would be covered significantly in reliable sources. You need to realize that underground sub-subgenres are generally not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. So far I have only seen one or two real reliable sources, and neither of those were SIGNIFICANT coverage. Also there should not be dab for two pages, when one does not exist, the hatnote does enough that you should be happy. Outside of his website and urbandictionay, there are many pages of GHits about the mixtape, before anything about the genre. The most likely search term is the mixtape by Chance the Rapper, and if anyone is looking for the genre the hatnote works perfectly. If the genre was so significant to be the primary topic it would have had a stand-alone article a long time before, but after all the reviews, coverage, and award nominations, the mixtape comes out on top. STATic message me! 15:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't claim the online sources themselves had a mainstream bias, I said her previous article edits appeared to and seeking only sources that rarely favor underground independent music is unfair. Keep in mind that Esham made the term Acid Rap much more significantly notable solely by himself (independently according to the text) than Chance the Rapper did with all of the personnel listed under the album. I stand by the following two arguments until proven wrong that:

• This is not a contest for which subject can be factually (or statistically) sourced by mainstream magazines and music reviews the most. The question is which subject is realistically the most notable, influential, historic, or otherwise famous in order to be considered most highly and significantly associated with the simple underground term “Acid Rap”.
• There still remain no reliable, factual, notable or otherwise credible textbook reasons or references to show evidence for the claim that the term Acid Rap is more notably referred to, more highly recognized or more significantly or commonly referenced in relation to Chance the Rapper than Esham therefore the album (or mixtape or article Acid Rap) should be moved (or redirected) to Acid Rap (album) (or Acid Rap (mixtape)) per WP:ALBUMS/WP:RE. Ben0kto (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Side note: The hatnote is just fine and I do admit the style Acid rap may not actually warrant its own article since it is already pretty much defined clearly on Esham's page. Ben0kto (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfortunately, online magazine references such as all of the ones provided simply do not stand up to a textbook level of verifiability. Ben0kto (talk) 12:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you just said "I admit the style Acid rap may not actually warrant its own article since it is already pretty much defined clearly on Esham's page." So what are you arguing to achieve? If the hatnote is just fine why would you want the article to be moved? Also on your last point, not really. Much of the reviews are also transcluded and included in the print form, not to mention that four questionable pages of coverage in one book written by an ICP fan, pales in comparison when put up against the coverage, reviews and award nominations received by the mixtape. STATic message me! 14:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because the term more commonly and significantly refers to Esham and the style he created decades ago via text references. What I'm trying to achieve is an undo of the article hijacking which happened months ago. Ben0kto (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Side note: The book in question was not written by a fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben0kto (talk • contribs) 15:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The only time we really consider something to be "hijacked" on Wikipedia is when someone goes to an article that is already written and already established, and then fills it out with different information. For example, if someone were to go to say, Star Search and fill it out as if it was for a book by the same name, then that would be considered a hijacking. However if something is a redirect and we have an article subject that can fit notability guidelines enough to merit its own article, there is nothing wrong with removing the redirect and creating an article at that title, as long as the article that someone is trying to create is notable. The album is clearly notable and at this point in time seems to be more notable than the subgenre of acid rap. It might not seem fair to you that something that you like has received less coverage than the album, but it's not up to Wikipedia to make up this difference. Is it fair that in most cases reliable sources usually ends up meaning "mainstream sources"? Not really, but that's because most non-mainstream sources tend to be blogs and other places that have little to no editorial oversight and are almost impossible to verify their accuracy. It's also not entirely fair that almost all of the places that could be considered reliable sources tend to ignore the smaller subject matters out there in favor of things that are more mainstream or more visible. Again, it's not up to us to correct the lack of coverage for whatever you or I feel deserves more coverage between the two of them. When editing Wikipedia you have to put aside what you personally like or prefer in favor of what is the more notable of the two. In this case it's the album. A Google search brings up about 7-8 hits for the album for every 1 hit for the subgenre. That makes the album the most likely search topic, and therefore what should be at this entry. I'm sorry that you feel that you are being personally slighted by this, but people have tried to explain this several times to you. When writing an article we have to figure which is the one that is more covered in reliable sources. If there had been an actual article here to begin with then it might have been a different story, but the article in question was merged and redirected due to a lack of individual notability. The album's creation at this spot was perfectly reasonable and it should stay here. There's already a hatnote at the top of the article, so anyone coming here for the subgenre will be know to go to Esham's page. There's really no need for anything else. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Until a consensus is reached, I will still have to assume there is no actual, factual credible textbook noteworthy reason for the term itself to be more associated with an album per WP:ALBUMS, and it should be moved/redirected. I will not move or touch the page again as of right now. Ben0kto (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• We've given you plenty of reasons as to why the album should be at this entry as opposed to the genre (either as a redirect or a small article). In the end the album is more notable because there are far, far more sources that cover the album than the genre specifically. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • But your reasons aren't factual. Online sources from recently just don't count as much (per WP:REF). Ben0kto (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• They are based in Wikipedia policy. It's just that the sources you give are either trivial (mention it only in passing), primary, don't mention the style, or mention it in passing in relation to Esham. I can't see where it's more heavily talked about and therefore the more likely search topic for just the term "acid rap". If you perform a search for just the term "acid rap", the first ten pages are almost entirely for the mixtape, with only one source actually mentioning the subgenre Esham created. That shows that the most likely search topic would be the mixtape, which has every right to be at the basic term "acid rap". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I am not going to discuss this anymore. A recent search term on google does not make the album any more notable in simple terms for encyclopedic purposes; and I have cited policies like WP:REF which you cannot prove wrong. Thanks for the hatnote. Ben0kto (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing the discussion sounds good to me. So it's decided? The article will remain for the mixtape and there will be a hatnote at the top of the article that directs anyone else looking for the genre to Esham's article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The administrator's at gatekeeping may be assumed in good faith. However, in this case they have made a significant error. While attribution of a genre's creator is an important historical detail, it's a misuse of reduction to limit the details of an influential artistic movement this detail. It would be like the entire Gothic genre being reduced to a footnote in Ann Radcliff's bio page. The administrator on this page should remove themselves before they further undermine and dis-serve this topic. Contemporary music and "literature" may have some overlapping commonalities but to request textbook level attribution for contemporary low brow music genre work is an error. This genre has existed since 1989. Chance release his minor mix tape in 2013. You have historical evidence of this genre existing. You have median reports of major artists discussing this genre and defining themselves in relation to this genre. They felt it was important to discuss this genre. Those are important cues aside from the obvious commonalities of the works themselves.

Acid Rap may refer to:

• A style of rap created by Esham
• A 2013 mixtape by Chance the Rapper

I moved the page Acid Rap to Acid Rap (Chance the Rapper album): Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide - Another use of the title can be found over at Mastamind so the album needs further disambiguation.

Note: Undiscussed move reverted and page move protected per a request at RFPP. [41] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]