Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yorkshire hip hop

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. W.marsh 16:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yorkshire hip hop

This title made me lol. Completely unreferenced article drowning in cleanup tags. Nothing worth mentioning in the scheme of British hip hop. the wub "?!" 15:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Prune and Merge - with British hip hop. The article needs a ton of cleanup, but I think the idea of comparing musical styles and tastes by region is a good one. -bobby 16:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Article as it stands is mostly just a big ol' list of people without articles. My... brain... hurts! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Yorkshire hip hop is not a recognised genre of music, if it is, there is no evidence in this article. I've added many of the tags, and discussed it at length. Escaper7 17:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - It's not an issue of whether Yorkshire Hip Hop is a genre or isn't. Just as a single language can be broken into many dialects, a genre of music can differ by region. I happen to believe that this phenomenom is of enough interest to be mentioned in an encyclopedia, even if it doesn't deserve its own article. Hence my merge comment. -bobby 17:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I don't see a rush of editors trying to Wikify the article, tidy it up, NPOV it etc. If it were that easy I'd have done it myself, I entered the discussion on this one a few weeks ago. It's not just about genre, there are lots of problems with this article.Escaper7 18:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • False. It is a matter of whether it is a recognized genre. To use your language analogy, per our Wikipedia:No original research policy we don't accept new proposals for new dialects of languages, or new ideas about regional differences of languages, but only accept those dialects and regional differences that have already been recognized and documented in the literature on linguistics. The same goes for genres of music. Unless this specific genre has been recognized and documented in the literature on pop music, the idea that it exists and that there is something specific to this region is original research and not permitted here. What you personally believe is irrelevant. What the sources say is what counts. Encyclopaedia articles are based upon sources, not upon the personal beliefs of Wikipedia editors. If you want to make a case for having coverage of this purported phenomenon, point to where it has already been documented outside of Wikipedia. Without such sources, you have no counterargument for the charge that this is not a recognized genre of music. Sources win arguments, not your personal beliefs. Uncle G 18:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Yorkshire hip hop is NOT recognised in the same way that Crunk, or Gangsta rap are, (as sub-genres); and record shops don't have Yorkshire hip hop categories. If the article is kept it should perhaps be renamed Hip hop in Yorkshire (that's how the article starts now) and there's a long list of "groups and emcees" with no articles about them, or their notability. That's my final comment. It should be deleted unless it can speedily be given a major rewrite. Escaper7 19:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Ecky thump delete or merge over to t'British hip hop article. Keresaspa 17:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Do not delete with cleanup, this can be a really good article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewisskinner (talk • contribs)
  • What sources do you propose be used to clean this article up? Where is the documentation that recognizes this genre? Uncle G 00:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Yorkshire hip hop is not a genre - it is a scene or a movement. Britpop was a scene and not a genre. Likewise Post-punk, Post-punk revival, Post-hardcore, Hardcore punk, emo, Goth, New Yorkshire etc. These are all umbrella terms used to describe bands, often with a widely differing sound, united by their being from the same geographical area, having the same fanbase, utilising similar production technique, or just simply being mates L.J.Skinner, talk to me 00:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, I believe the main point of Uncle G's question (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the article needs sources, not whether its subject is a genre or movement. JChap2007 01:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
      • You've failed to answer the question. Again: What sources do you propose be used to clean this article up? Uncle G 02:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
        • By all means, rename to Hip Hop in Yorkshire. As for source, digyorkshire is very good and names many of the artists is the listing, there's this review on BBC Leeds online and this article, cash cow records plus personal website including myspace articles on Gramma marksman, LS7 Battlerz, Double D Dagger, Nemesiz, Hoodz Underground, anyone you care to search for has information on the web, and easily enough to warrant their own articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewisskinner (talk • contribs) 2006-10-31 12:30:47
          • That's the problem for me: Just because something is on the web, does not make it a legitimate source. Clicking on Cash Cow records reveals this: "Welcome to cashcowrecords.co.uk the virtual home of 'Cash Cow Records' and 'Inertia'..." It's just a website - anyone could have set this up. It hardly looks like a part of Def Jam records or an established music company: it lacks notability. Many of those sites also talk about hip hop nights in Yorkshire - there are hip hop nights happening all over the world. Some of the websites are just a shop window to a selection of MySpace links, and if BBC Leeds is talking about hip hop in Yorkshire, that's not the same as BBC 1Xtra or Westwood. If they are, source it, and let's see why it's a growing scene/style/genre of interest to a national audience. See the long list of red names (30 or so), in the main article. Escaper7 14:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
          • You need to do better research. Cash Cow Records is publishing out-of-date copies of Wikipedia articles (and not complying with the GFDL in doing so, moreover), and is not a source at all. (I actually came across that web site when I was checking this article for copyright violation.) The articles on the musicians that are anywhere near to being good sources have nothing specific to say on the subject of Yorkshire hip-hop, since they are autobiographies of the musicians. The BBC article on Yorkshire Terrierz says nothing at all about Yorkshire hip-hop. The BBC user-submitted gig review is just a review of a specific gig and provides no evidence that there's any such subject as Yorkshire hip-hop. That leaves just the digyorkshire article. That article is in fact about hip-hop culture and British hip-hop in general. The only things that it says about Yorkshire specifically can be summarised by saying that British hip-hop can now be found in Yorkshire, too, which is somewhat redundant. You've presented a source which can be used for British hip-hop. You haven't presented anything that supports either a Yorkshire hip-hop or a Hip-hop in Yorkshire article. Uncle G 16:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Pure speculation, OR and POV. JChap2007 23:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Notability not asserted. Seems as though the creator has tried to create an amalgamation of trivial thoughts. Anlace 00:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• do not delete! the list is actually very informing, though it could've been merged with british hip-hop, in some sort of "local rappers/hip-hop" section or something.. and it should propably be cleaned up a little bit. we need more of theese lists, and they very useful.. openforbusiness 89.8.32.186 06:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It still needs to be correctly sourced - without that it's no use at all. Escaper7 10:20, 7 November 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.