Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pimps Up, Ho's Down

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pimps Up, Ho's Down

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

This is a tricky one. On the one hand, neither Rotten Tomatos nor IMDb have any critic reviews of this, the only one I could find was in a small time newspaper, and GNews archives search was otherwise sparse. On the other hand, considering the actors involved, I would not be surprised to find that there is coverage somewhere and I'm just not seeing it. As it stands though, I don't think this meets the GNG. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect to~~ America Undercover, the HBO documentary anthology series it aired as a part of (these are real people, not actors, though they probably embellished for the cameras); not really notable on its own though it's one of the more well known AU docs. More surprising to me is how the AU article could be really expanded though. Nate • (chatter) 00:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm finding some sources, but it's going to be a little while before I know if this is going to be enough to warrant a keep. I've found some reviews and it's been mentioned in some books such as this one by New York University Press and this one by the University of California Press. There are more hits, but some of them are hidden under paywalls like this one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's also mentioned in another academic text that discusses song lyrics that references the documentary. There's mentions in other books, but I'm finding that there are a lot of academic texts that mention the documentary as an example of the sex worker world, for better or worse. It's referenced in quite a few places, but I'll try to keep links here to places that could actually be seen as more reliable in origin. Some of these are brief in nature, but pretty much all of them talk about the documentary as an iconic piece about prostitution. ([1], [2]) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to America Undercover. This is a notable enough documentary to where I do think it merits a mention somewhere. However at the same time I can't find anything to create more than the paragraph that's already on the entry. I notice that America Undercover is more than a bit lacking, so I propose that we could take the entire paragraph and just cut and paste that into the main article with just a few revisions. Even if the entry is further fleshed out, this would fit nicely into an episode box on the page for the most part. If someone can find a little more and justify keeping it separate I'm happy to change my vote, but for now I'll say merge and redirect.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting WP:NF. To disagree with the esteemed User:Tokyogirl79, this does have enough independent notability no matter the series of which it may have been a part. Independent reviews and commentary showing a meeting of WP:NF include articles in Entertainment Weekly [3][4] Vibe Magazine [5] and Time Magazine [6] and several books.[7] It also seems the book "Pimps Up, Ho's Down: Hip Hop's Hold on Young Black Women" drew heavily upon the film as a resource. And what convinces separate notability is sources such as "Deconstructing Tyrone: A New Look at Black Masculinity in the Hip-Hop Generation" calling it a "cult-hit". Yes, the article need expansion and use of additional available sources, but a merge loses sourced content and a delete is the last resort for only that which is unsalvable. Even were it to remain stub-like, that is within guideline and policy. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, seems to be numerous sources 193.109.199.71 (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to keep per above. Sounds like a reasonable enough argument to me. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep The arguments and added sources convinced me to switch to keeping the article, good job. Nate • (chatter) 08:36, 19 October 2013 (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.