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. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hip pop[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#General, this is a recreation of a previously deleted article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pop rap). Content is either unsourced or original research. Per Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion, a likely neologism. Dan56 (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the referenced AFD two years ago. I'm not familiar with the content genre, but I think it would violate NOR and therefore should be deleted. MBisanz talk 03:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There doesn't seem to be any justification for calling this topic Pop Rap, which, judging from the only real source (All Music), is a somewhat hollow term for American black music which charted in the early nineties. The references to Pop rap and the list should be removed as off-topic. Hip pop on the other hand does seem to have valency in the Japanese market (and perhaps the modern US market, judging by the billboard source). On that basis I would suggest that the article be refocused and kept. SFB 11:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For those who do not believe hip pop exists and live in the Sacromento area; you can even hire a hip pop dj with the "spam retracted". Arcandam (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are not allowed to edit my comments and you misunderstand our policy on external links. We are allowed to link to commercial websites to prove a point on AfD's. Reread the policy you linked. Nota bene: I posted lots of links to Google Books. Google is a commercial website. Arcandam (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The person who wrote that foreword in that coloring book is J-Zone. Hiphop fans will know who I am talking about. It was published in San Fransico, and it is in English. What is German about it? Arcandam (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improving it is a good idea of course and it should be relatively easy given the huge amount of sources. Renaming the article to Hip hop impact in popular music or something similar would be original research. (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Arcandam (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This accusation of "promoting a POV" is pretty funny, to be honest I've quite a few reasons to think those who pose as the fair and balanced defenders of the true genre and use editsummaries like this are a part of the problem, not a solution. Arcandam (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, this was a neologism back in the late 1980s/early 90's. It's 2012. Arcandam (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any sources from 2012, then? Anyway, you should read those articles you cited in context. Some of them are questionable, like using this quote, which is from a label exec. that uses the term disparagingly. This one discusses the early disco-sampling hip hop of the late-70s. This one just uses your term to mean hip hop that's gained mainstream success, nothing about it as a genre (musical/lyrical, etc.). This one brings up some other made-up term "combat rap". You've fished around for anything mentioning "pop rap", but the term still doesn't feel encyclopedic/legitimate. Dan56 (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to attack some of the sources, there are over 8000 of them. Good luck. 8k sources are wrong, you are right. Sounds unlikely. If you want some sources from 2012 you can find them yourself, should be easy enough. Google Books isn't as up to date as it should be. Why should the sources be 5 months old at most? Arcandam (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you used the search engine correctly, there are 2k, but you can't filter out fiction books. But hey, found this dictionary source for "hip pop". None for 2012, though. Dan56 (talk) 01:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you would've been familiar with this genre, you would've realised that "pop rap" is the same thing... It even says so in the article. Why should the sources be 5 months old at most? Arcandam (talk) 01:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a genre (source: hip hop culture critic)... but what article are you referring to? Dan56 (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. That was pretty funny. [1] Arcandam (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can co-operate on writing an essay that promotes the viewpoint that every article should have over 9000 sources BTW. Arcandam (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms#Neologisms:

Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.

Dan56 (talk) 02:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, quite a few of these sources are secondary or tertairy and quite a few of them describe pop rap/hip pop and its history instead of just mentioning it. But you would've known that already if you would've read 'em. Arcandam (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which? Dan56 (talk) 02:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want me to read over 8000 sources and then tell you which ones fulfill the criteria above you can hire me. But I am pretty expensive. You haven't yet answered any of my questions as far as I can remember BTW. Arcandam (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Dan56 (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't nice to vandalise an article before nominating it for deletion BTW. Of course it increases the chance it gets deleted, but it isn't really fair. Arcandam (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but you could have explained your revert, like I appropriately did when I edited the article. Dan56 (talk) 02:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Nota bene: Dan just did this edit. Arcandam (talk) 02:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Dan56 (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what "ditto" means? If so, why do you use it incorrectly? Arcandam (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you revert my edits to Hip pop? Dan56 (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because you shouldn't delete most of the content in the article, and then nominate it for deletion, that is unfair. If that part of that sentence is not sourced, ok, so be it, just leave it unsourced for a while. Arcandam (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not call me 'bro'. I am not your 'bro'. How old are you? Arcandam (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It should at least be tagged. Try using an edit summary next time. Dan56 (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Editsummaries suck. Try reading a bit about different music genres before nominating an article about a music genre for deletion next time. Or maybe you should stick to your favorite genre's (I assume you are more knowledgeable about those) and steer clear of hiphop- and hippop-related stuff. Arcandam (talk) 02:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I don't know anything about hip hop. I just wrote articles like Fear of a Black Planet, The Lost Tapes, It Was Written, My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy, East Coast hip hop, Fight the Power, Radio (LL Cool J album), and Sir Lucious Left Foot: The Son of Chico Dusty. Wait, but what would a foreigner know about American music anyway. Dan56 (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AArcandam&diff=493386657&oldid=493131791 Arcandam (talk) 11:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Xenophobia. Arcandam (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ignorance. Dan56 (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Penguins. Arcandam (talk) 03:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we have an impressive collection of randomly selected words maybe we can go back to the topic. Yeah, you may have helped write parts of certain articles about a different genre. But until very recently you were unaware this genre even existed. Only that article about that Kanye album is relevant, because that is hip pop. You incorrectly listed it under hiphop. Arcandam (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion, back it up. Dan56 (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I already did. With a reliable source, a leading expert in the hiphop community. Maybe you've heard of him: KRS-ONE. Arcandam (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I wrote those articles in their entirety and got them through GAN. What does one opinion from a rapper have to do with Kanye West? Dan56 (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How many accounts do you have? Arcandam (talk) 03:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC) p.s. If you look very carefully you may be able to insert even more citation needed templates in there. It is really helpful.[reply]
If I can't remove like it should be removed.... Dan56 (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said before, I think hiphop fans in general are aware who KRS-ONE is, he is not a random person with an opinion, he is afaik the most reliable source for statements about hiphop. You can compare him to a doctor who was trained by Harvard medical school diagnosing a patient, that is not "just a random persons opinion", it is the opinion of an expert who has all the necessary credentials to be able to make such a claim. User Secret said he is a leading expert in the hiphop culture. I agree. What do you think? Arcandam (talk) 03:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nota bene: Dan56 has canvassed his friend Status to get someone to agree with him. @Status: It is kind of weird to base your vote on your lack of understanding of Google's typo autocorrect feature. Arcandam (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Dan is not a friend of mine, I have only talked to him previously on maybe 2 or 3 occasions. He asked me to leave a comment, so I did. It can be discarded if will be. @Arcandam I fail to see where I stated delete Google said "did you mean". I said a quick Google search shows up bare, with it additionally showing us as "did you mean: hip hop". — Statυs (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah yeah, you talked on maybe 2 or 3 occassions... LOL. Please follow that link I posted. I will post it again here. If I search for "hippop" on Google (including quotes!) I get about half a million results. If I search for "hip pop" I get well over 4 million. If I search for "pop rap" I get 5 1/4th million and if I search for "poprap" I get 80k more. Arcandam (talk) 04:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please take a look for yourself. The first is a "welcome to Wikipedia" message from him, second is another user talking of him, third is a message from asking to look at a talk page at an article in which I edit frequently, fourth is him leaving me a message saying something about track listings, fifth talking about moving of an article I edit, sixth a few questions he asked me. )I'm going in order from the bottom to top) I can't say for sure I even replied to most of them. But please, continue. — Statυs (talk) 04:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And again I'll say this, I did a quick search. Most, if not all, the results are only about hip hop. — Statυs (talk) 04:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you actually trying to start shit here? We edit the same type of articles; what is your point? What relevance does that have here? You stated the two of us were friends when that obviously is not the case. Check out his talk page history. I edited it ten times. And I believe most of them were over content disputes between the two of us. I get canvassing, and I happily said my comment could be discarded if it is found to be questionable. He didn't ask me to vote delete, I did that all on my own. I even said I would change my mind if the article became more notable. — Statυs (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can see the list below. It is quite obvious he asked some people he likes and knows to comment. I am not saying you think of him as a friend, if I have given that impression that is wrong. Arcandam (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a joke, but is it encyclopedic to give undue weight to one of the more conscious rappers when theyre being a bit critical of a rapper that's the polar opposite of him in West? Dan56 (talk) 03:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That joke sucks. Arcandam (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably stop canvassing now, before someone else notices. Arcandam (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
R U being a sore loser? I've asked numerous users, including STATicVerseatide, Wikipedian_Penguin, Rp0211, and this article's only major contributor ACSE, along with this article's creator Lairor. I even asked Sillyfolkboy, who had the only keep vote at the AfD discussion for "pop rap". Editors that have edited music-related articles will likely have talked to me before: I primarily edit those articles. Don't make baseless accusations, like I don't know anything about hip hop or canvassing. Dan56 (talk) 04:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed you don't know anything about canvassing. I am quite sure you do. Arcandam (talk) 04:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If attacking me will help save this article, then keep at it. Dan56 (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did I? Do I need to remind you what you wrote earlier? Arcandam (talk) 04:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See here Arcandam (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You think it'll work for me as well? Dan56 (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What? Arcandam (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arcandam (talk) 04:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Take it somewhere else. This is a discussion about the deletion of an article. I feel real sorry for anybody who will try to read this page. — Statυs (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a template for that. Listing everyone he left a message to and when they last edited has no relevance to the topic at hand. — Statυs (talk)
It is quite obvious you're losing your mind. Dan56 (talk) 04:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If attacking me will help delete this article, then keep at it. Arcandam (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dan, there's no need for this either. — Statυs (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well he must be. How does that even work? I hardly agree with my friends most of the time, let alone WP editors. It's just like him to bring up something ludicrous like that. I shouldnt have addressed that Kanye West talk page. Otherwise, he probably wouldnt have followed me here. Dan56 (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should we continue this discussion at WP:ANI or are you going to stop with the personal attacks? Arcandam (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're accusing me of canvassing, bro. I don't appreciate it. You're undermining my effort. Dan56 (talk) 05:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked you before not to call me 'bro'. I don't appreciate it. I am not your 'bro'. You wouldn't dare call me 'bro' IRL, don't do it over the internet. Even Status says the audience was "questionable" (bottom of his talkpage). I think that is a big understatement. Arcandam (talk) 05:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then don't accuse me of canvassing. I asked people who usually edit music articles to comment. You know agree with Status one something, but as soon as he commented here and disagreed with you about this keeping or deleting this article, you brought up irrelevant ethical questions that you wouldnt have had he agreed with you. Dan56 (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, maybe I wouldn't say "you are canvassing" if you didn't canvass. I remember a short while ago when you were not canvassing (or at least not that I was aware of!) and I did not accuse you of canvassing. But now I am aware you have been canvassing. And not just on this article. Indie hip hop is another of your victims. I think I will need to spend some time looking into your contributions and figuring out what is going on. Arcandam (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC) p.s. The question if someone is canvassing is not an "irrelevant ethical question".[reply]
It is. I haven't. You don't agree with me on this article. OK. But you're hitting below the belt with this. Dan56 (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't play dumb. I know you are worried I will discover you've done this before. I already figured out that you did the same thing to Indie hip hop. Trying to ask an admin to help you now won't work, its a bit late now. If you did nothing wrong I will discover that soon enough. In that case there is no problem. But it seems more likely that you have done this more than twice. Arcandam (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nota bene: if you would've done nothing wrong then it wouldn't be a problem if I start investigating possible canvassing, right? Arcandam (talk) 05:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, bro. Dan56 (talk) 05:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, sis. Arcandam (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC) p.s. I've asked Dan56 plenty of times to stop calling me 'bro', he keeps trying to troll by using that word, but it backfired.[reply]

Nota bene: Dan also nominated Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Indie_hip_hop#Indie_hip_hop. Why do all the hiphop-related genres have to be deleted if all the pokemon can stay? Yeah I know, otherstuffexists, but WP:Don't worry about performance, we have plenty of storage space. But there are thousands of sources that mention these genres. It seems rather unlikely that all 8000+ sources together in Google Books alone are not enough to write a decent article. And if that would be the case we could simply use Google News and the normal searchengine. This kind of deletionism hurts the 'pedia. Arcandam (talk) 08:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball[edit]

We can basically snowball this by now. 8000 sources in Google Books alone. Canvassing. Personal attacks. Trolling. Arcandam (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No --Guerillero | My Talk 13:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK --Arcandam (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation of comments[edit]


For those who do not like reading: here is a summarized version of this debate: plenty of sources v.s. IDHT Arcandam (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks as if the article should be moved to pop rap, as there seems to be more sources calling it that. — Statυs (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree but I would like to remind everyone of WP:BIAS. I am unable to speak Japanese, that may unbalance the article because I am unable to give due weight to their part of the story. Maybe we can ask a J-pop specialist to look for sources on Baidu. Arcandam (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Back to a point I made earlier, all these sources are fine, but are there any that describe "hip pop" or "pop rap" as a genre, that is a stylistic criteria? For instance, is there anything that can back up what the article currently says: "a fusion music genre combining the vocal style of pop with hip hop"? Rather than just using the term, is there something analytical, describing them this way?. Dan56 (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear that even you admit that all these sources are fine. Maybe you should move your attention elsewhere. Please read both WP:IDHT and WP:STICK. Arcandam (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. For others editor who'll acknowledge my previous comment, I did an article, Neo soul, that dealt with the term that emerged in the 1990s to market certain soul artists, but it went on to take on another meaning, stylistic characteristics, etc. It went from being a marketing term to being its own genre. So what I'm asking is, if this is a genre, are there sources to support whatever musical characteristics it has. It's a fair question, so I'm asking it. Dan56 (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but it is a bit timeconsuming/wasting to respond all the time and to correct all the mistakes you make. Wikipedia:Randy in Boise. If you are still trying to get this article deleted even though you say "all these sources are fine" I just don't understand you. What do you want done? Want an improved article with a clear definition of the genre and its stylistic characteristics, etc.? ((sofixit))! But this is a debate about deleting this page. Do some of the work yourself, improve it, instead of complaining. Go find sources, you know how Google works. You bragged about writing other articles, feel free to demonstrate your superior editing skills on the articles you nominated for deletion. Turn them into a GA. Arcandam (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one claiming it's a genre. Dan56 (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. 8000 sources on Google books alone do that. And millions more on the searchengine Google. Even the hiphop lyrics I posted on the talkpage are clear evidence. You are claiming that all these people use the same neologism/WP:OR... and you do not even have a single source. Go do something constructive please. If you think the article can be improved, be bold, google, and improve it. Arcandam (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No they don't. A genre is a stylistic criteria. If the sources did support it, that leading statement in the article would be sourced. I'm trying not to be a dick to you anymore, but you don't return the favor. Can we please stick to the substance of this discussion? Are you saying that I need a source to support whether it's a neologism or not? B/c the term is being used rather than described/explained, then how is my point not related to what Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms#Neologisms says about "An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy." Dan56 (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Stop. Halt. This is important. You've stopped trying to be a dick. Cool! If that is true I forgive and forget your earlier behaviour. Hello friend. Lets work together, and improve this Wikipedia. I am not sure what kind of stylistic criteria should be used to describe music like this, maybe we can find someone who can help you with that. Maybe it is a good idea to try Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Entertainment or something similar. No need to delete the article, we do not have a deadline to finish the improvement you want. Arcandam (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? A genre is a stylistic criteria. This article reads "Hip pop, also known as pop rap, is a fusion music genre combining the vocal style of pop with hip hop". Dan56 (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not write that sentence afaik. Arcandam (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what is "hip pop", according to you? Dan56 (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a reliable source. I would say "hip pop" has more than one meaning. But that is WP:OR. Arcandam (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Confusing. I did not write that sentence afaik. I am not sure what you want to improve and how, but we can always try to find some sources, or we can ask for help on (for example) WP:REFDESK. Arcandam (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But you said before that it's a genre. If it's not defined by certain stylistic elements/characteristics, then how is it a genre? This point goes back to what I said before about the guidline on neologisms. The results from Google show the term being used, but not being analyzed/described, which fits what WP:Avoiding neologisms says, and what Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion supports as well. Regardless, shouldn't that statement be removed if it can't be verified? Dan56 (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was echoing sources, sources say it is a genre so I do too. My personal opinion is not important or relevant, but if you wanna know: I am not sure about the Japanese part because I am unable to understand that language. I am sure it is a genre in the US of A. I like to compare Wikipedia to playing LEGO with a group of kids. Lets say the common goal of our group is to build a police station. They found some LEGO in a corner. Other kids played with it, and it is a bit messy, but it is still fun to play with. Maybe one kids idea is to build a wall four times, put them together and build a roof, and when that is done he starts to pick which doors and windows and the like he wants and then he starts decorating the place. Another kid notices a flaw that he believes is really important, and he wants fix it before the other parts of the police station are built and he also wants to destroy the police station if it is not fixed soon enough. Of course those kids run into communication problems, they have a very different mindset, but they both want to have a police station in the end. I agree, that is a flaw, and I agree that it is important. It is defined by having certain stylistic elements/characteristics from both hip hop and pop of course. In case of doubt I try to stick to the sources. We may be able to find an expert via something like WP:REFDESK or IRC: we are not alone. There are plenty friendly and helpful people we can contact. From experience I know that if you need an expert on something weird, e.g. Flags of Nepal, there is always a Wiki-Expert to be found. Arcandam (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You must've missed this; clearly about the term; not just using it. That short list is not "all possible sources", it is just meant as proof that this term is not original research, like Dan56 claimed earlier. There are over 8000 sources on google books alone, good luck searching the best source for this article! There are so many to chose from... Arcandam (talk) 14:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really didn't miss anything. Those are incredibly blatant neologisms. The authors aren't even comfortable using them, preferring to describe it as "pop" rap and "pop rap", or just throwing every possible derivative under the sun at the keyboard. If that's a representative sample it's not helpful to the argument at all.-Rushyo Talk 21:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gangsta rap is also between quotes... Is that a neologism too? Only HipHop Matters uses those quotes in the way you described. I don't know if it is a representative sample of course, I haven't checked all potential sources (over 5 million). Arcandam (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You'll note Gangsta rap has multiple verifiable, reliable third-party sources that are exclusively about the term, explaining it in depth, rather than using it or trying to half-heartedly define it. I'm not convinced you'll find those kind of sources in your 5 million link haystack, even if you looked. Regardless of that, sources must be verifiable, not just 'probably exist'. To quote WP:V: "Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia; truth, of itself, is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. No matter how convinced you are that something is true [...]" -Rushyo Talk 21:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am a believer :-) Gangsta rap is a subgenre, this is a fusion genre, that is a big difference in this case. Why would someone write a book about pop rap as a genre? That is the curse with fusion-genre's, it is very possible to get a book about rock or rap, but an article about rock-rap? Lets try another subgenre. Searching for "Rap" on Google books gives 3.370.000 results. Searching for Jazz rap about 2.620. Should Jazz rap be deleted too? And Nu jazz. Please check a couple of articles in Category:Jazz genres and Category:Hip hop genres and Category:Fusion music genres; lots of articles do not live up to those standards. Do you think they should all be removed instead of improved? Arcandam (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I think is somewhat irrelevant. We have a consensus, through WP:NEO, as to how scenarios such as this should be dealt with. I know you're familiar with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so I don't know why you're asking me that question. You're relying on a reductio ad absurdum argument which is really a false dichotomy. To rebutt it less coldly I will point out that the only two sources in Jazz rap are still better at meeting WP:NEO than anything I've seen for this article. This is a perfect example of a point where WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS will keep you out of trouble. -Rushyo Talk 22:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think I understand what you mean now. Give me a couple of minutes, I will try to fix the problem, please be patient. Arcandam (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then dig up some more. There are plenty to chose from. Arcandam (talk) 09:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming[edit]

Proposal:

Is that a good idea? Arcandam (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the venue to discuss renaming an article --Guerillero | My Talk 00:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This was the same thing brought up in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pop rap, where the response to the Allmusic source was that it's still only one source. Dan56 (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but don't you understand how impossible this is? Should I make a list of all the music articles that do not adhere to those standards? We are trying to build something here. Arcandam (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't impossible. We are trying to build a verifiable encyclopedia of notable topics. That sometimes means that topics get dropped due to a lack of sources to lend to this goal. I am running into this same problem myself with a genre article I am trying to write. It is something that I accept and I find a new topic to write about. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Positive hardcore" has 36.800 Google results and 103 Google Books results. In that case it makes perfect sense. Here it is very different. Arcandam (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources may be reliable, but that doesnt mean every word/term they use should be made into an article. Echoing Rushyo's comment, sources that are about the term, rather than just use the term, should be cited, per WP:NEO. Per WP:Notability, if there isnt coverage on a topic, then it doesnt have the merits for its own article. As it is, the article is still mostly original research. Maybe adding the term to wiktionary instead? Dan56 (talk) 00:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe stopping to push your POV instead? Maybe dropping the stick instead? Maybe admitting you are not the great hip hop expert you believe you are? Arcandam (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are any of these article about the term, rather than just articles that use the term? (WP:NEO). Dan56 (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2012 (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.
More