Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hip hop model

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. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hip hop model

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatant personal opinion. Guy (Help!) 20:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable topic; I don't see how personal opinion fits into it. Any problems with the article should be resolved through normal editing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the talk page you will see that some suggestions have been made but nobody is quite sure how to do this. If you want to tag for rescue then go ahead. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there probably is a subject in here somewhere but it is rather hard to say exactly what it is. I don't think Hip Hop is part of it but there probably is something to be said about the use of models in music videos more generally. I don't want to !vote Keep given the poor state of the article and the fact that nothing much happened to improve it after the last AfD. I will start off neutral and switch to Keep if anybody can come up with a good suggestion for sorting this mess out. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete [or merge to Sexuality in music videos ]: topic appears to have garnered little (if any) depth of coverage that "address[es] the subject directly in detail" -- just its occasional usage as a label. In fact it would appear that "hip hop model" is used more frequently as 'other band that this hip hop band models itself upon' or 'style/format of hip hop' as the eye candy that this article is describing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update !vote per comment below. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD. The news media uses this term, so it is a real thing. Dream Focus 11:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but many (most?) of the uses are in a different context to the one described in the article, e.g.: "break-dancing for the camera, Talib was reenacting a prescribed hip-hop model" "But Nelly's St. Louis -- Nellyville -- doesn't quite fit the hip-hop model." "Tony puts it down to the use of Ableton, which means that rather than working from “one basic beat and building off it” (the standard hip hop model)" "He threw it all away because he bought into the self-destructive, immature, hip- hop model of 'keeping it real.'" "Yet the band's hip-hop model remains Run-DMC"
And even where the WP:GHITS you alluded to do use it in the article's context, the coverage does not "address the subject directly in detail" -- it simply calls somebody a "hip hop model", and then goes on to discuss other stuff, more important than that superficial, ephemeral label. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest not to get too hung up on the specific phrase "Hip Hop Model". I think that is not the right name. The real question is whether there is a notable subject here and, if so, what it actually is and should be called. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was once called Videogirls but that AFD ended with them renaming it to Hip hop model. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Videogirls. Why not just list models who got famous for appearing in music videos? Alicia Silverstone's career really took off thanks to the Aerosmith videos she was in. Of course sometimes people are famous before appearing in music videos. What do you call those who appear in music videos, just to "sex it up?" Heather Graham got coverage in the media for her work in a Lenny Kravitz video. [1] Perhaps rename the article to List of famous people who have been in a music video to flaunt sex appeal. It is a notable and well documented aspect of the music video industry isn't it? Got famous before or after the video appearances, but got coverage for being in the music videos. Dream Focus 02:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: based on the discussion above, the related topic that is most likely to have garnered coverage that "address[es] the subject directly in detail" would appear to be Sexuality in music videos. I'm fairly sure that that topic will have garnered some coverage from sociologists, marketing theorists, etc about its effect on society, how "sex sells", etc. (Oh look -- it already exists.) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^converse 17:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sexuality in music videos per Hrafn. Doesn't pass WP:GNG on its own, and the merge target could use more content. SnottyWong ^converse 17:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If VH1 determined that the subject was notable enough to produce an entire documentary on the matter, it should not be that difficult for Wikipedia to come to the same conclusion. -- RoninBK _{T C} 09:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, when did Wikipedia redirect WP:Notability → VH1 (is the latter even a WP:RS?) And how is "sexploitation on the set" not part of Sexuality in music videos? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not even remotely close to what I'm saying, (and I don't appreciate the reductio ad absurdum). My point was that there is an article to be had here. -- RoninBK _{T C} 19:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then be clearer about what you are saying. And whatever your "point" may have been, your evidence points to an article over at Sexuality in music videos, not here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:43, 7 January 2011 (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.