Talk:Part Two
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 | Disambiguation | |||
| ||||
Untitled
In all of the above cases, except for "I Need A Girl" (Part I) which featured Usher and Loon, the "Part I" version was a solo song from the artist, while the "Part II" version featured one or more guest musicians.
This is not true Independant women part II and Confessions part 2 did NOT have a a geust, except for the Confessions part 2 remix.
not capable of not being original research
This article should be deleted. It's simply not a notable subject. It's a word that appears in hip hop song names a lot, and is therefore best defined at wiktionary. I'm aware that wiktionary is not an encyclopedia, by the way. Indeed, noone should copy this original research anywhere except perhaps a private web page.--Urthogie 04:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's not a dictionary article about a word. Indeed, there is no word being defined here. It's an encyclopaedia article about a type of song, a "Part II song". It appears to be a novel synthesis of data documenting an idea, a class of songs, that hasn't been documented at all outside of Wikipedia, and hence appears to be original research. However, it was not proposed for deletion for being original research, and I know that I haven't done the necessary research into the literature on hip-hop to determine with certainty that it really is undocumented outside of Wikipedia, and suspect that you haven't done so either. (Hence the tag requesting sources, rather than a deletion nomination.) It was proposed for deletion for being a dictionary article, which it clearly is not. Uncle G 10:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Uncle G, it's a way of calling a song a remix. Remixes are a notable subject, and therefore there's plenty to talk about Part II in an article on remixed. But Part II by itself is not at all notable. A novel phrase for remix is not a notable subject. Can you explain to me why you disagree with this sentiment? Specifically, why would you oppose redirecting it to remix, and introducing its discussion there?--Urthogie 14:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)