Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snap music

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 Keep but clean up, consensus is that the topic is notable and that the article can be improved. Davewild (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Snap music

Snap music (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Now, don't get me wrong. This is a style of music. However, this article is abysmal. First of all, there is only one source that has any coverage of snap music, and even that is just a short paragraph in an article that doesn't really have anything to do with snap music.

The entire criticism section is awful. There is no mention of snap dancing in the section, or even in the article that is the source for some of the section.It starts off by saying that snap dancing has been criticized as "garbage" and provides nothing to back this up. The "snap dance" section is pretty bad too.

So, at the moment, there is no indication of notability. It's also riddled with irrelevant, POV, uncited ramblings. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 08:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. How is the article POV? I'm sorry, but I just can't see how. It does have notability... if About.com has got something on it[1] it's notable. Littleteddy (roar!) 08:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I personally despise this genre of hip-hop, but it does exist and it does appear to be an ever-growing genre. I do recommend revisions to the article, however, to make it a bit more suitable to Wikipedia. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete About.com coverage or not, this article's not really up to WP standards of notability or original research restrictions. If the subject is notable, there's got to be better reliable sources out there to include in the article than what's there now (one of the sources doesn't even mention snap). A Google search for better sources reveals some privately maintained blogs (not RS), some trivial, trivial coverage on MTV.com and the about.com article which lists no sources. So what do we use to put together an encyclopedic article? If more, better sources are found I'm open to recreating, but my deletionist streak says that we should find the sources first, then create the article. SingCal 23:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and tag for massive cleanup. My initial impulse upon reading the unsourced hodgepodge would be to be bold and redirect to hip hop, but if someone spends some time removing the lists and adding cited information telling more about the music itself (instead of the gossip-like politics of the genre, this could most likely stand quite well on its own. B.Wind (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2008 (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.