Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breakdown section

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 Merge and redirect to Break (music). Agent 86 00:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Breakdown section

Breakdown section (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

tried to redirected to Break (music); page was moved back; propose merge or deletion John Reaves 00:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect to Break (music) (already seems to have been merged) unless someone convinces me that these are vastly different concepts. --- RockMFR 00:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Break (music). Article is more of a shorter version of that than its own article. —The Great Llama^moo? 00:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect - I am ok with a merge.redirect for this article. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per nom. Though there could be a semantic distinction the concepts are too closely linked. --Dhartung | Talk 16:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per nom, as above. I could support Keep (possible as a stub) if and only if some very strong evidence that these two concepts are very different is presented. Perel 16:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Original editor of this page posted this on the article talk, I've left them a note about this page being the best place to discuss this right now - pasting in what they had to say below: (Perel 20:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC))

Please notice and read this clarification of my assertion

The article on Breaks itself makes the point that breakdown and break are distinct. Has anybody read it??? What is missed here by those recommending to move is that hip hop would not have developed from breaks alone: they are simply too short to use for the purpose intended in hip hop music. Only an extremely skilled DJ cutting at lightning speed could use breaks and not breakdown sections! It had to be the breakdown sections which were used, else the hip hop era could not feasibly have begun until after the era of digital audio, capiche??If this is accepted, then Breakdown Section becomes the parent concept of hip hop musical culture and must have unique placement to avoid screwing up the whole lineage. Also, I can elaborate on breakdown sections and I'm only one user of the Wiki. (see the artist Lime page for some further ideas which can be placed in breakdown section, there are far more I assure you, such as dance records without noticable breakdown sections, breakdown sections which themselves became SONGS (Ride on Time by Black Box and Rapper's Delight come to mind right off the cuff). I am frustrated because the people who want to mess with this language simply don't understand it and yet are voting for deletion less than a day after i posted this, in fact someone wanted to delete it right away! C'mon people, how about we all LEARN something from the WIKI! I am sorry for the tone but this is my first editing dispute and I am incredibly frustrated by the lack of advocates and the haste of my opponents. I thank you all for your consideration and for Wiki-ing in the first place.--Tednor 18:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

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.