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. ((sofixit)) and add references. I've also moved a large chunk to the discussion page because that's where it belonged. And if you find that you don't like my ways you can send me back in thirty days.  RasputinAXP  c 10:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The golden age of hip hop[edit]

This discussion is becoming heated; users are reminded to remain civil, assume good faith, and avoid personal attacks while working towards consensus.

The reason why I'm nomming this for deletion as opposed to a mere cleanup is because this article is nothing more than an essay of one person's opinion of what the golden age WAS (hence no research a-TALL). This isn't like charting say, grunge rock. This "golden age" simply does not EXIST. And if it does 1) it sure as heck wasn't in New York and 2) it sure as heck wasn't from 1986-1993. If anything, the age STARTED in '92 and ended around '96. But you see where I'm going? We'd be here all day. This has no place here at Wikipedia. Next thing we know, we'll be charting the golden age of rock. PennyGWoods 22:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - there are no references at all here, and the 'golden age' seems to be quite arbitraly defined by whoever wrote the article. The whole timeline section of hip-hop seems to have been divided in such a fashion. References to all these pages would be good, especially for the criteria for 'golden age'. I think that this falls more under 'original research' than anything else. - Master Of Ninja 00:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Against - I disagree, I think the article needs to be worked on a bit more but there's definitely an era in the rap history that is called the golden age. It started when rap became more popular with the emergence of Run-DMC and the creation of the Def Jam records label. ref: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:12014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.185.52 (talk • contribs) 2006-05-20
  • Comment - Another essay full of nothing but original research. And whadya know, the Wikipedia essay was heavily influenced by AllMusic and more or less reworded by our resident dissenter here, who failed to follow policy when voting: # Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article. The user who voted against is the article's author. PennyGWoods 07:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes you think 24.203.185.52 is the article's primary author? Tim Ivorson 2006-05-20
      • My mistake; I should've looked closer at the IPs. I'll strike my comment, but my statement still stands. It's OR, and teeters on plagarism. PennyGWoods 00:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was 24.203.185.52. Reason I didn't sign is I didn't have a username and you're right I didn't follow policy cause I didn't read it, I'm not a regular wiki-"modder" or however you call it. Lotheric 02:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OR. - ulayiti (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I wonder whether an article on Hip hop in the late '80s/'86-'93/whenever belongs on Wikipedia. If so, renaming of this article should be considered. Perhaps it could say "[notable hip hopper] refers to [the 'golden age'] as the 'golden age'." Tim Ivorson 2006-05-20

• STRONG KEEP. Golden age hip hop is not an original research conception. It's recognized by the music press[1] and the hip hop culture itself as a distinct era in the music and the culture, which had certain characteristics such as a harder sound, along with experimentation, and a political/socially-conscious current throughout. Allmusic.com, the largest music site on the internet, even has a subgenre directly under hip hop called "golden age."[2] As can be clearly seen, this isn't original research. Thus, because it is verifiably not original research, it is therefore not contrary with any wikipedia policy except perhaps NPOV-- a policy, you should note, which isn't a reasonable grounds for deletion. For any doubters that still remain, consider these articles which also refer to established eras in various movements, cultures, and hobbies:

• Golden age of Jewish culture in Spain
• Islamic Golden Age
• Golden Age of Comic Books

Go ahead and search wikipedia for more of these if you like. As can be clearly seen, this nomination isn't sound. Peace, --Urthogie 17:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The golden age of comic books is because there is a Golden, Silver and Bronze era, noted by TIMELINE, not by "the best era EVA!!!111", which is what this article is trying to claim. I can't comment on the other two because I don't know about them, but 1) just because they're here on Wiki doesn't mean they SHOULD be, and 2) from what I'm reading, these "golden ages" seem to be agreed up by NUMEROUS scholars. All you've linked to is one or two articles saying "rap's golden age", none of which state your timeline. As for AllMusic being the biggest music site online...so what? What if Rolling Stone disagrees with AM? Or Spin, or XXL, or Vibe? I DO think it would be cool to break up hip-hop by era, maybe, or decades, or 1/2 decades. But to try to label a "golden era" is just bunk. It can't be done, but a couple of nose-in-the-air so-called "hip hop purists" will ALWAYS try.

Ah! And apparently UrthogieIS the author's primary author, as confirmed on his user page by UrthogieTim Ivorson 00:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PennyGWoods (talk • contribs) 2006-05-21[reply]

You made three points, one of which is significant. The two insignificant points you made were that 1)it's npov and 2)I created it. Neither of those are grounds for deletion, as you know. Your third point was that it is not recognized by enough media. Almost all the sources you listed reference this genre/time period:

• "Vibe" [3]
• "Rolling Stone" [4]
• "XXL" (where its mentioned a lot!) [5]

Sorry, but you have no point here. It's been verified, and having me source it was a waste of time. I urge everyone who voted delete to revert their votes on the basis of policy. Peace, --Urthogie 13:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watching you talk yourself into a hole is a blast. You're just bolstering my argument.

1) NPOV IS a significant reason for deletion - in fact, it's one of the MAIN reasons! So you're ADMITTING it's NPOV, but saying that's not important? Bad move.

2) It IS significant that you wrote the article. That's why the rules state that is you're the primary author, you have to make that known in your vote.

3) What a surprise! NOT ONE of those links verify your timeline! And the thought that you might actually have to SOURCE what you write is a waste of time? Isn't that the point of this whole place? Thanks for this morning's laugh. And double points for digging like hell to find a vague mention to an even vaguer "golden era". The rule here is that it has to follow "Google" law, and even with the Google link YOU provided, it doesn't! Do yourself a favor: if and when you ever get arrested, don't represent yourself in court.

This isn't as big of a deal to me as it is to you - obviously you're passionate about your little essay and you're using Wiki as web space to publish said essays. (I can refer you to a wonderful, cheap web host, by the way.) But it's stil OR, and OR has no place here. By your own admission, you state that NPOV isn't a problem. But since it looks like enough people don't even care enough to vote (unless you want to drum up some sock puppets), it looks like your little Ode to Hip Hop is going to stand. Kudos, you've lowered the quality of Wikipedia. (tips hat) PennyGWoods 15:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA and WP:DICK. You're not helping your argument. Λυδαcιτγ^{(TheJabberwock)} 20:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. Happy editing!PennyGWoods - Tutmosis 21:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say the main problem with this article is the lack of references, and the lack of any other articles giving a timeline. If we had such references there would be no such problem. The links from Vibe, Rolling Stone and XXL give no specific agreed timeline to the 'golden age'. The XXL link especially is pretty poor in this regard, where there are comments of a 'golden age' but no specific timeframe or agreement what it meant. The other two links only have one mention of the 'golden age' again in a non-specific manner. Better references are needed for this. Doing a google search itself brings out similar links where there is a general reference to a golden age but no specific agreeement to what it is. I found one article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5430999/) stating the golden age was the 80s but no timeframe as put in the article in question itself. Here is another article that does state the timeline (http://www.daytondailynews.com/music/content/life/daily/0428life25cdshiphop.html) but there is no indication of the exact source of the timeline, or when the article was written - was the information taken from wikipedia itself? This is why this article needs proper referencing and attribution. If you read it you have no idea where the information comes from, and once wikipedia distributes it, the article will tend to become copied across different sites, and then becomes "fact" due to massive "spamming" (for lack of a better word) of search results. Even doing a google search there seems to be no real consensus when this 'golden age' was. Even then who made such a period the golden age? Where is the research behind it? Even if the article is not deleted, it needs a major rewrite, with proper referencing, to actually be any good. (PS Seeing the comments above people need to chill a bit). - Master Of Ninja 19:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• strong keep - as per nom P.O.N.Y. 17:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think this article's factual accuracy is very disputable, but this is a very relevant article pertaining to hip hop. --Ted87 17:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & Support - It should be used wisely. LILVOKA 19:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG STRONG STRONG keep - The grounds for deletion holds no weight at all whatsoever. As Urthogie demonstrated, there are several publications and media outlets which acknowledge the 1980s as the golden age of hip hop. A simple Google search has shown this (in less than 10- seconds, I found this credible article entry. As one person has noted, even All Music Guide acknowledges the existence of an golden age. Chubdub 18:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Strong Keep - see: Urthogie.--Gяaρнic 18:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - per Urthogie, but the article could benefit from some time in userspace because it needs major work. I'd support a cleanup tag and major revisions though because the article is unsourced and its content can easily be opinionated. -- ßίζ·קּ‼ (talk | contribs) 18:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This article was ment to summarize a time period in hip hop starting from 1986 to 1993 as stated in the hip hop music article. I think more emphasis should be made to explain that this article summarizes those years. I think this article should definetely be kept for that reason and maybe renamed to something like Hip hop music (1986 - 1993) to please delete supporters. The term "golden age" can be mentioned in the lead to satisfy the keep supporters like myself. Urthogie comment above also states a good reason for this to stay. - Tutmosis 19:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to History of Hip hop music (1986 - 1994), the title is a tad PoV and probaly why it was placed in AFD in the first place but it's a very valid subject, clearly not orginial research. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't understand why the article title needs to be changed. Every major hip hop publication agrees that the mid-to-late 80s were indeed the golden age this article is referring to. As Urthogie pointed out, Golden age of Jewish culture in Spain, Islamic Golden Age, and Golden Age of Comic Books are all subjective in nature, but are acknowledged by historians and other credible sources. What makes this article any different so as to deserve a change in its title? Chubdub 19:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A name change isnt necessary but it would avoid the problem of POV accusations. An encyclopedia is ment to give both sides of the story despite public opinion on the subject. Now since this period is really considered Golden Age by the mass public there still might be people who would disagree with this. Therefore when they come here, the article name implies that we are agreeing with the mass public. I'm not saying we should completely throw away of this period being called Golden Age, but maybe putting it in the name is a little too much. - Tutmosis 19:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Chubdub. I think there should some mention in the article that claims that some people consider the 90s to be the golden age of hip hop (and this would have to be supported by a source/music critic). While the opinions of a few should be adressed, I don't that alone warrants a title change. P.O.N.Y. 20:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's far enough in the past now that it can be judged. You don't know a golden age until it's over. There seems to be general agreement that there was a golden age and that it's over; the arguments are over the exact dates. People are still arguing over when the "golden age of rock" ended. --John Nagle 19:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I just read in the Wall Street Journal about "rap's golden age." The article was talking about Run-D.M.C. and Public Enemy, among others. It's definitely a real term. And I just made a bunch of edits to the article, so it's not very POV anymore. Λυδαcιτγ^{(TheJabberwock)} 21:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Only because I've heard the term used before. The article needs a bit of clean-up. La Pizza11 21:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Unbelievably STRONG KEEP. Are you serious? This has 4 million hits on google, a million more than the very real idea of "deep dish pizza." The Golden Age of hip-hop is a serious concept, 86 to 93, encompassing Afrocentric underground rap. There can be no name change, this isn't something you can rename. It's as real as religion.

"This "golden age" simply does not EXIST. And if it does 1) it sure as heck wasn't in New York and 2) it sure as heck wasn't from 1986-1993. If anything, the age STARTED in '92 and ended around '96."

Are you for real? Not only did hip-hop start in New York (where ELSE would the golden age be? the golden age of Russia didn't happen in Vermont), but saying it ended around 96 (assuming you're alluding to Pac and Big deaths) is both a miscalculation and an injustice. The golden age is bookended by Run-DMC and Dr. Dre, the transition from New York domination to West Coast popularity. In this time period, countless important and groundbreaking artists were introduced to the genre, hence why it's called the golden age, the age where there is most progress. Not only is your claim paper-thin, it's false in more ways than I can even think of. The golden age of rock doesn't "exist" because it hasn't been discussed as much and becase (arguably) rock hasn't made any giant strides in any particular time period, being as it is a slower-evolving genre and it's older than hip-hop. If you ask rock critics/fans, you can get a rough consensus on when the best rock and roll was coming out, but that's all it would be, an unofficial poll on a concept you're not sure about. The golden age of hip-hop is obvious, your point isn't. MOD 22:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• giggling* Okay, then when was the golden age of hip-hop? Yup, that's what I thought. Hon, you and your little b-boys are going to keep your little toy, so what are you crying about? The article is terrible - just about everyone here agrees with that - and the only reason why it's going to stay is because PONY and a couple of others went and rallied up their friends and said "HEY! COME VOTE!" (as evidenced by the user pages). I could do the same, but it's really not all that crucial. The article is going to have to be re-written. Hell, let it stand. We have articles about unicorns and sirens - why not about another myth? That God my worth isn't determined by my projects on Wiki-frickin'-Pedia. My name isn't on the project, so my creditbility isn't compromised, and that's all that matters to me (that, and the piece of dreck gets a serious re-write.) You win. Good show. And? PennyGWoods 06:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The golden age of hip hop was the time from the popularity of RUN-DMC to the popularity of gangsta rap(specifically the chronic). Every sourced timeline will be within a year or so of this(and this bluriness can be addressed in the article itself). PONY didn't do any "rallying", they merely informed the hip hop wikiproject of this afd-- they used proper etiquette, and didn't voice their opinion on talk pages. god forbid a wikiproject actually be informed on the deletion of a notable subject. This wasn't about winning-- instead of putting it up for AFD you could have slapped an NPOV tag on it. Chill out man, we've all had failed AFD's.--Urthogie 07:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i'd rather also like to address this issue of being 'rallied' by my 'friends'. As far as i'm concerned, a user I've never previously encountered asking "I wonder what you think about this" on my userpage is, as far as I can see, a damn sight more neutral than this ridiculous delete nomination. so yeh, go and sit on your moral high ground and *giggle* away. W guice 08:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per User:Urthogie but make sure the article specifies who is defining the GAoHh as such.--Rockero 04:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. If it's NPOV - edit it. If there are disputes about the dates - discuss it. But deletion? As long as I've been listening the Golden Age has been as basic and central a concept as, say, The Four Elements. W guice 12:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Every musical form has its own golden era; hiphop is no different. I do agree that the article could do with some editing, though. We could also do with less ad hominem attacks and sneaky attempts to put one's POV across over this article -- people are dying in Iraq and Darfur, and people are here getting high blood pressure over music...proportionality, people, proportionality, please. Hey, alliteration! ;) -- Jalabi99 14:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup. I hate music critics because, they have certainly established the idea of golden ages/original eras for every genre of music. Since they have enough influence though, they can do that if they want. -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem y}_{o I'll solve it} 20:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, definitely a good topic, people need some more info on the Golden Age, the page needs a lot of work. User:PDTantisocial

• Keep and cleanup, I pretty much agree with - Tutmosis, because there was a golden age definitely, but the timeline does seem subjective, so maybe a disclaimer? -- Carlos 21:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - Any time a term like "golden age" or "classic" is used it's always subjective. But there's always a general consensus of approximately what period falls under such categories. It is apparent from numerous music publications that there is such a consensus among music writers when it comes to hip-hop. And yeah, PennyGWoods there is a genre called "classic rock" and you can find on your local radio station. What plays on your local station may differ slightly than what plays on my local station. But generally the same songs are played on such stations all over. What I don't understand Penny is why you insist on engaging in some kind of flame war. That is one thing we can all agree that definitely has NO PLACE in wikipedia.MrBlondNYC 09:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (Against deletion), the golden age of hip hop is a verifiable age and perhaps even sub-genre of hip hop. It is referred to in the pretty comprehensive publication of The Book of Hip Hop Cover Art by Andrew Emery for example. It is also broadly/widely understood and recognised and is worthy of remaining on Wikipedia as it's own article, albiet with a well thought out cleanup/revamp/citation. Jhamez84 19:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - The topic is significant enough to have an article. Sourcing and POV issues can be settled on the article's talk page, and AfD is not the place for resolving those challenges. --DavidGC 11:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. AfD is not the place to take cleanup or content issues. As it stands, the article could use some referencing, NPOVing, and all that lovely stuff, but I see no reason why the article itself should be deleted. -Mysekurity ^[m!] 02:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, clean up, and retitle to something a little less subjective and more encyclopedic. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete, unless it can be referenced from a verifiable source. If you ask three different people when the "Golden age of hip-hop" was, you will get three different answers (I myself can give you at least four: 1972 - 1979; 1979 - 1986; 1986 - 1992; 1992 - 1996. It all depends on who you ask, and the context). I've been in hip-hop clubs, helped organize shows, and produced records, and I've never heard the words "golden age of hip-hop" come out of anyone's mouth (not even a rapper's; though I suspect someone, somewhere has said something). There is definitely old school hip hop, which most agree stopped cold in about 1992, and I could see "Golden age of hip hop" being used as a synonym for that era. However, there is no solid consensus on a "Golden Age of hip-hop", and no referencing of such in the article. You could suggest that the article be about the lack of consensus over the term, but that leads to original research. On top of all of that..."golden age of hip hop" is very vague. Golden age of hip hop what, exact? The article seems to be focused on the music, so the title should state such. If this article is to be kept as it is, it should be moved to either Golden age of New York hip hop music, Golden age of East Coast hip hop music, or History of hip hop music (1986 - 1993). Hip hop's timeline is really too fractured and factioned to agree on a definitive golden age that would please all people and be historically accurate. --FuriousFreddy 02:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to also take time to point out that fishing for votes is not condoned when it comes to AfD discussions. I strongly hope the editor who closes this discussion will research the vote-requesting by whomever has been doing it and make an informed decision.--FuriousFreddy 02:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the word "the" should be removed from the article, to address the confusion over the term. But freddy, isn't it true that we have plenty of articles over somewhat blurry eras? Can't the article address the various views of what it was, as it surely is a notable, albeit debated genre/era? As far as vote counting, PONY didn't fish for votes, they just informed members of the wikiproject of the vote. There wasn't any statement of opinion.--Urthogie 10:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the article starts addressing all the different views, it becomes an essay; that is, "original research", which is a Wikipedia no-no. I can't even be verifiably certain that a "Golden age of New York hip hop music" would actually begin in 1986. Why not in '82 with "The Message", or in '83 with "It's Like That"? It's probably best to simply move the article to History of hip hop music (1986 - 1993), for the sake of verifiability. What P.O.N.Y. did was still not a good move; one announcement on the WikiProject talk page would have sufficed. Notifying a group of his immediate peers on the project, whom he knows are going to vote "his" way, is indeed fishing for votes. It almost reminds me of those horrible old AfD's involving the Mariah Carey/Christina Aguilera fangushers. --FuriousFreddy 12:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What PONY did was based off a neutral standpoint. No matter what his motivations or intentions were, he did not include any of his opinions whatsoever, nor did he suggest that people vote for it. He merely asked what the members' opinions were, since this is a significant article for the hiphopwikiproject, and a significant part of hip hop history itself. And you assume that he believed evey one would vote to keep this article, but that's merely an assumption. As far as original research, if an article can be sufficiently sourced and referenced, then I see no reason why not to include diferent views (see Renaissance Historiography). The beginning and the conclusion of the Renaissance is debated as well (definately to a greater extent then the beginning and start of the golden age of hip hop). Chubdub 14:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What PONY did was go to a bunch of hip-hop heads and tell them that a hip-hop article was in danger of being deleted, knowning damn well that the vast majority of you would storm in and vote keep, which...surprise, surprise, is exactly what happened. Even if he didn't state an opinion, the very fact that he did it AT ALL is not a sign of good faith.

By the way, I was doing a count. Before my PC shut down and I lost my entire post. I counted 11 keep votes, all fished for by PONY. But I'm sure that's a mere coincidence.PennyGWoods 05:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a coincidence-- people that are interested in the subject, and are part of its wikiproject, agree that you're wrong. Isn't it kind of a double standard that you accept Furious Freddy's "fished" vote, but not everyone elses? --Urthogie 13:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FuriousFreddy is the only one who called attention to it. But if his vote is tossed as well out of fairness, then I would understand it. As for your rather PUBLIC movement, I can't believe that you're so stupid that you wouldn't see why that is a problem, so I'm not going to speak down on you, and I'll ignore your weak attempts to play dumb. PennyGWoods 20:35, 30 May 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.