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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Merge (non admin closure) --andy (talk) 10:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hasiklidika[edit]

Contested prod. This is a real term used in a particular musical subculture but it's so fringe as to fail wikipedia's criteria for notability. E.g. googling "Hasiklidika" yields only about 100 hits, not all of which are relevant and many of which are in Greek. Adding "Rebetiko" to the search yields only 48 hits. Unlikely for a notable musical term. andy (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 10:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rebetiko. While the term is well-known, there isn't much to say about it, and the relevant info would be placed in better context in the Rebetiko article. Constantine ✍ 12:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, but from the author's comments on the article's talk page and my talk page I'm not sure he'd agree to that: "I am just this guy, after all, and when I am dead nobody will miss one person who knew a fairly large amount about the Greek music about drugs. Sure it's obscure. Sure the Americans want all trace of drug culture destroyed, for whatever their reasons are. But I'm writing about something in the past, so it's history, and I put a reference to an excellent book about it". andy (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So? If he really wants to thwart these evil Americans and secure his posthumous fame, he better expand the article from an one-liner to something resembling an article. The subject is interesting (I'd certainly like to see a fully-fledged article on this), he has the sources, let him go ahead. If he indeed intends to do that, then the redirect can alwyas be edited and expanded. Until then, redirect and merge the one-liner into the main Rebetiko article. Constantine ✍ 18:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh do as you like. You know all the proper procedures, and I don't. You will just be finishing what Metaxas started. The Real Walrus (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who or what is Metaxas? I can't find a wikipedia editor with that name andy (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

is it really a good idea to initiate a deletion process when an article is only three minutes old? Judging from the availability of academic sources on the subject, I would expect it to be a viable article topic. --Hegvald (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if so, so be it. However, IMHO, there's insufficient evidence of notability. BTW this AFD process will take several days, not three minutes. andy (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a one-line stub, the article is of zero worth, except as a dictionary entry. If The Real Walrus wants to expand it, then OK, but there has been no indication of that. I really think it best if the info is merged into the main Rembetiko article. Constantine ✍ 06:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Metaxas is this guy. Constantine ✍ 07:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, how relevant. Well, I'm with you on the merging. Let's keep this AfD open for another day or so and if nobody else wants to contibute anything I'll close it and merge & redirect. andy (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2009 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.