What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.
Primary issues (added by the filing party)
I have included citations in both articles, from reputable sources relevant to music and rap music. Disputing user has deleted or redirected the pages citing lack of notability, despite the inclusion of said third party citations.
Citations include sources such as Rolling Stone, MTV and Hot New Hip Hop in the case of "Mac & Cheese: The Album", and MTV and XXL magazine in the case of the article on the "Cocaine Mafia" mixtape.
Without resorting to an edit war, a dispute over semantics, I would like additional inputs regarding the articles and the sources cited. And if fallen short, then what standards must be met to be considered an acceptable citation of notability
If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.
Agree. DA1 (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.
Reject. I'm going to exercise the discretion given to the Chairperson under prerequisite to mediation #9 to "refuse or refer back to other dispute resolution venues (e.g. dispute resolution noticeboard, third opinion, request for comment, or additional talk page discussion) a dispute which would benefit from additional work at lower levels of the dispute resolution process". In this particular case, I'd recommend a trip to Reliable Sources Noticeboard before seeking help through dispute resolution of any kind since the discussion about the issue has been so sparse. Even if I had not rejected this case under prerequisite #9 I would have probably rejected it under #4 which, like all other forms of moderated content dispute resolution, requires extensive discussion before resorting to dispute resolution. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]
