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 of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Videogirls[edit]

I'm not entirely sure this one, but it strikes me as a neologism / original research and google seems to return mostly porn rather than the hip-hop meaning used in the article. Unless someone can substantiate this, I would recommend deletion. Dragons flight 18:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stiles 04:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my suggestion that this be deleted, noting both the much improved name and the expansion of content. In addition the strange name, the original item I tagged had fairly little by way of content that didn't feel like someone's opinion piece, i.e. the original research remark above. There are still some things I'd like to see addressed. In particular what is the foundation for the list of "Successful Hip Hop models"? Following the links, some are identified as hip hop models but others are described as singer/actress and other broader categories. In some cases there is very little evidence presented to associate with hip hop at all. I would note that to be a successful hip hop model one would need to both be identified (or self-identify) as such and then be successful at it, noting of course that one could be a successful singer/actress without having had success at hip hop per se. I'd like to see this list substantiated with trade publications or something like that. Otherwise it will be something of an open invitation for anyone to add their favorite music video actress regardless of quality.
Another issue is one of categorization. Is there really such a thing as a "hip hop model" as a well-defined category? I'm noting that the phrase gets even fewer hits than videogirls did. Do these women really view their careers as defined by the hip-hop genre, or are they more generally seen as models/dancers/actresses/etc? I have really no expertise in this area with which to say, but I am suspicious, as I imagine most entertainers would be glad to get work wherever they can get work. For example, would these women really refuse to work in a music video that wasn't hip hop?
Lastly, and this is really a minor point with no bearing on the deletion discussion, I find it surprising that an article like this makes no explicit mention of the role race plays in this issue. If it is almost entirely constrained to black (and latino?) culture, as is my impression, then that should be mentioned. Are there any white hip hop models? Not apparently from the list of successful ones. Dragons flight 06:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already set it to redirect, which is why I posted the result. And women in hip-hop videos not being notable? Do a search on google news, or any hip-hop site, or any collection of feminist info, its very notable.--Urthogie 16:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im fine with new title-- needs punctuation fix tho. (Ill do that)--Urthogie 00:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My former position:Rename. Women in music videos aren't just confined to hip-hop music videos. The title is too specific. "Music video models" would make more sense. --Modulatum 04:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but there's a lot to say about female models in hip-hop specifically-- when a subject is wide enough it gets its own subject.--Urthogie 10:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, there isn't. A few shining borderline softporn stars like Melyssa Ford have made a name for themselves, but there's frankly very little encyclopedic to write about this topic. --Modulatum 22:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot to say about it because it relates to various gender-related issues. Melyssa Ford deserves to have her own article, and perhaps a mention in this article.--Urthogie 22:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From Melyssa Ford's interview with AHH:
"AHHA: Everyone talks about the men in industry and casting couch. What’s your advice for women trying to come up right now?
Melyssa: Oh god, spare yourself - go back to school! That’s my advice. I would never get involved in doing videos right now. It’s not the same. The dynamic has changed so drastically. You could hold the argument that women were always objectified, but now they are really objectified. Now it’s about body parts and how well you can shake them. It’s not about the female. It’s not about appreciating the female." [1]
There's nothing positively feminist about their careers. For Melyssa Ford herself, her career as a model was a stepping stone to bigger and better things, not an end in itself. This profession isn't as glamorous and as imbued with civil rights as is implied. --Modulatum 12:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't talking about their careers. I'm talking about the issues of gender-equality, objectifying women, etc. that are talked about in the mainstream press(im not saying i hold these ideas as relevant, but an encyclopedia is representative of modern day thought and discussion on an issue). Thanks,--Urthogie 18:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This discussion is not going where it needs to go. The only issue that is being addressed here is whether this article should be deleted. The majority believe that it should not be deleted provided that there be some changes. I have made drastic changes to the quality of the article, and hopefully others will add to it. For those who don't believe this needs to be part of an encyclopedia, what about an article on cheese? Do you remember the last time you had a conversation about cheese? Well, there was a lengthy article on cheese on the frontpage. I really don't think it is fair for people to mark a topic that they are not interested in as being "garbage" or non-notable. If you don't think it is worthy of being in an encyclopedia, trust me, there are others who do believe it should be. Don't force your opinion on anyone, and don't threaten a deletion. That is not right. If you have people question what should and should not be part of Wikipedia, the only topics that will be left are those of serious historical value such as the Holocaust. Yes, the Holocaust should be part of Wikipedia, but does that mean anything that is less significant should not be? Please consider the fact that you may simply have no interest in Hip Hop or modelling. That could very well be why you don't think there's any signficance to this. Let me ask you this, though. Why is it that this industry probably is worth several million dollars and has big names such as Playboy joining it if it is not worthy of mention? Also, why is there an article on pornstars on Wikipedia when there should not be an article on Hip Hop models? Stiles 20:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a response to Dragons flight. You have questioned whether this article should be entitled Hip Hop models. The answer is that it should be. You have seen, by following links to several Hip Hop models, that some are not considered Hip Hop models in their own articles. All models in the list I created have done 'other' work, in addition to work they have done in Hip Hop music videos. That does not mean that they are strictly Hip Hop models. I never suggested that, and perhaps as a clarification, I should mention something about this in the article. Furthermore, there are some models that are better known as being something other than Hip Hop models. That does not mean they should be eliminated from this list, because their value as Hip Hop models is well appreciated, and they are, nonetheless, recognized by many as being models from Hip Hop videos. Should a model indentify herself as a Hip Hop model to be on this list? No. That is simply not a reasonable requirement for this definition. They may call themselves models who have done work in Hip Hop, but they may not take on this particular title. Consider the fact that President Ronald Reagan could be listed on a list of actors as well as a list of presidents. I may put him on a list of presidents, but that does not mean he wasn't an actor. If you asked most people who Ronald Reagan was, you'd probably hear "president," although he very well deserves to be on a list of early 1900s actors. I realize you wanted the list substantiated. That is not a problem. Simply take a look at interviews that these models have done with magazines that are considered strictly Hip Hop magazines. I think the fact that these models did an interview with a Hip Hop magazine shows that they know they are popular amongst Hip Hop fans. I cannot take credit for every article is linked to from this list, but the articles I have created have reference to these models having done work as Hip Hop models and interviews they have done with Hip Hop magazines. I cannot be expected to keep track of all articles and make sure that each article has a reference to their Hip Hop work. Stiles 20:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Is there really such a thing as a "hip hop model" as a well-defined category? I'm noting that the phrase gets even fewer hits than videogirls did." If you go from one Hip Hop fan to another, most will not call these models "Hip Hop models." They'll use slang terms such as "eye candy," "dimes," "Hip Hop honeys," etc. The problem with slang is that it changes all the time, and that it is not exactly appropriate for an encyclopedia. That is why this article is titled Hip Hop models, and not "Hip Hop honeys." There is really nothing that can be done about this with the exception of having all these slang terms re-directed to Hip Hop models. Most models see themselves as being models, perhaps to further their careers rather than tying themselves down as being Hip Hop models, but they do this, like I said, for furthering their careers. They know very well that they have strong ties to the Hip Hop modelling industry, and that it would be more appropriate to call themselves Hip Hop models, but they won't do so for obvious reasons. You generally won't hear an lawyer say something like "I am an Intellectual Properties lawyer" at a social gathering. That lawyer will likely just say "lawyer", for the sake of ease. Stiles 20:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dragons flight, as for the race issue, I'll make sure to add that as soon as I get the opportunity. Like I said before, I appreciate if others could contribute to this article while maintaining a consistency, and not being radical with changes. I generally encourage adding to the article rather than taking away from it. Perfect it, but remember the time others have put into it. Thanks to all. Stiles 20:40, 21 January 2006 (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