Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scrypt

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. Rlevse 20:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scrypt

See also Netcee (AfD discussion), Netceeing (AfD discussion), and textcee.

I've tried to find sources, and come to the conclusion that this entire article is original research. It's documenting a style of poetry that simply isn't documented anywhere. I've looked for sources that document "netcees", "textcees", "kistyling" (the original spelling in the original version of the article), "kick-backs", "Richard Corey", and (of course) "scrypt" and "scryptology", and come up entirely empty handed. There is nothing to support the content of this article, which is a novel analysis and history of things that happen on World Wide Web discussion fora, being written and first published directly in Wikipedia by a Wikipedia editor, contrary to our Wikipedia:No original research policy. That is not what Wikipedia is for. The proper place for this content is a journal article in one of the several peer-reviewed academic journals that cover literature and poetry, or even a book, so that this style of poetry becomes documented.

I found several sources on the history and structure of rap poetry. But they support none of the content of this article, that subject is in any case a different one (according to this article, at any rate), none of this content is useful for expanding our coverage of rap poetry (because it is original research), and rap poetry is already dealt with in our article on rapping. There's no documentation that supports the assertion that this is even an alternative name for rap poetry, thus no support even for a redirect. Uncle G 15:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cbrown1023 talk 02:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Quote: "Scrypt (also known as script but mostly referred to as text) is a style of contemporary hip hop poetry popular on several hip hop-oriented Internet message boards." This implies non-notability. The last source ([1]) quotes Wikipedia to answer "What is Scrypt?" This suggests a failure of WP:A (that's WP:OR and WP:V). --N Shar (talk • contribs) 02:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's, like, nothing else I can find to say. I tried to find something Uncle G hadn't covered, so I could feel like I'd given the article a chance, but I might as well have not bothered. He said it all. —Carolfrog 07:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G. Good catch on the recursive reference. --Charlene 12:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G and Carolfrog. --Absurdist 02:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. Thanks friend. But alas, your views are totally wayward and unfounded. Scrypt is merely an underground movement of urban based, hip hop influenced poetry and creative writing. I like to think of it like the Harlem of the 20s. Anyways, Scrpyt is real, it exists, and impacts a key area of creative writing. It's not purely rap poetry, it's moved on to become something totally different and entirely unique in its own right. However, deleting the Scrypt article won't actually change anything. It'll just push the movement further underground once more, where it will develop and grow further, until one day will become widely accepted as an above ground form of creative writing. Viva la revolution! Or should it be viva Las Vegas? Who knows. Yours in humbleness of pride,George Whitefield, the honorable pastor of Scrypt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.155.77.144 (talk) 11:32, 3 March 2007 (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.