Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Iranian hip hop artists

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 no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iranian hip hop artists

Delete. Ugh, this is just a long list of completely and utterly non-notable musicians. JBsupreme (talk) 06:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not fond of these either, but once remove redlinks has been applied to it, I don't see why it would be any worse than others. --fvw * 06:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, after the redlink cleanup and removing the ones that link to something other than hip hop artists, there are two links left, and I'm not sure either of those would survive an AfD. I do sort of see your point... --fvw * 06:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The whole point of having redlinks in a list is to encourage article creation. And while the nom claims the listed acts are not notable, no evidence to back up that point has been given. (If they checked Iranian sources, I'd like to hear about it in the nom) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless. Punkmorten (talk) 09:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only three blue links that proably aren't notable either. Hip hop probably isn't that big in Iran, and I can't imagine this list ever growing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: list of non-notable artists. JamesBurns (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The three articles listed should be nominated for deletion as well. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:02, 18 December2008 (UTC)
Keep provided basic references are added for the existence/activity of each artist (the full list, without links). Because when the individual articles come up for deletion for insufficient sourcing or notability, we can redirect them here. Completely ignoring Iranian music because most of the references are not in English is just systemic bias. dramatic (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please WP:AGF. There is no evidence that any systemic bias is taking place at all here, you cannot "ignore" sources which do not exist or have not been cited. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, chiming in with MGM and Dramatic. While I really am not a fan of lists, I don't see why this list needs to be deleted. So it's short. So it has entries whose validity (or verifiability) is an issue. That should be an incentive to get to work, IMO, and if I knew any language at all I'd be at it--but Persian is not my forte. Iran is full of Western-culture loving folks, and hip-hop is part of that. And if hip-hop was NOT popular at all over there, dear Hammer, then the very existence of hip-hop acts makes them notable. Ha, a win-win! Drmies (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or, perhaps, a lose-lose. The choices are between long unsourced list or list with three names. Merge back to Iranian hip hop. Altering it beyond recognition isn't much different than a deletion anyway. Mandsford (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the good arguments made here. It's an indiscriminate list, and removing the redlines brings it down to only 3 or so entries, which is clearly not useful for an article. Xihr 06:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How the fuck can you call it indiscriminate when it only has blue links? Juzhong (talk) 09:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because I can read. Xihr 09:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - In my experience en.wikipedians are great at asserting stuff like "I can read" but not very good at demonstrating it. Juzhong (talk) 12:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please be WP:CIVIL. This is not really an option if you want to continue contributing here. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        What you makes you think I want to spend time with people who don't even attempt to explain their votes? Juzhong (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Perhaps this attitude is exactly why you're getting these kinds of responses. Xihr 06:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        ~~Aaah, so you people are thinking say "I don't like this guy's attitude, I won't bother to explain what I mean." You really are scum.~~ Juzhong (talk) 10:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to Xihr, indiscriminate lists can usually be fixed just by adding more information. At the moment, there is nothing to discriminate between the three blue-links on the list (Farez, Feroo and Sandy) but they could be describe within the article itself. That said, however, I see no reason that these three artists/groups couldn't be mentioned in the parent article. Mandsford (talk) 14:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As the nominator, I don't disagree with what you're saying. I don't think this list can be saved, but if someone disagrees now is the chance to do something about it! Someone, please, be my guest and add some reliable sourced material to this list! Otherwise its going to get roundfiled. Thanks, JBsupreme (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is not at all what WP:INDISCRIMINATE says. Indiscriminateness is not about the number of elements in the list, it's about the nature of the list. Xihr 06:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - See, when you don't explain yourself, no-one knows what you mean. Juzhong (talk) 10:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Weird, because I thought when I typed WP:INDISCRIMINATE it meant WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Reading is fun! Have fun with that block. Xihr 10:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Juzhong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked for repeated personal attacks (in this discussion and several others). Just a heads up. JBsupreme (talk) 10:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A perfectly valid discriminate list with the standard implied criterion of notability. There should not be any bar on redlinks for notable artists as these list articles that need to be created. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2008 (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.