Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HipHopSite.com

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HipHopSite.com[edit]

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

Just another random hip-hop blog. Nothing significant besides a few not notable list placements, lacks significant coverage in independent third party reliable sources. The only currently in the article is a small biography of the founder, which only mentions the website and does not discuss it. Fails WP:WEBSITE and not that it means anything but check out that Alexa ranking. STATic message me! 03:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to user:STATic from Pizzosteez HipHopSite.Com is one of the longest running, pioneering rap websites, dating back to 1996, preceding the "blog era". A search of Wikipedia will reveal over 500 articles that reference content from past articles on HipHopSite.Com. True, this site is not nearly as popular now as it was in its earlier years, (jn the past carrying an Alexa ranking of 30,000), but it has received mainstream coverage from MTV (the channel, not the website), Entertainment Weekly, and The Fader Magazine, among other entities. (These articles are not online, unfortunately). —Preceding undated comment added 05:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I see zero indication of this alleged significance, pioneering or notability present in the article. No, just a few minor "online" award from SOHH (another blog) does not indicate notability. It clearly fails WP:WEBSITE. STATic message me! 16:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:WEBSITE. Koala15 (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep there is enough reliable sourcing as poster pizzosteez above indicated. Based on past history alone it merits to be kept. Wikipedia is not a current-event-only dump and acting upon current status alone amounts to WP:Recentism. Admittedly the article is not written in the best way but that's not an excuse to delete it. I have not edited the article but just added the missing reliable sources. —Loginnigol (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strength comes from one's argument. Adding strong to your vote doesn't give it any more weight to your opinion compared to someone elses. The minor mentions you found, outside of the Billboard mention, do not amount to much notability. Also it should be of note that User:Pizzosteez (also the creator of the article) appears to be the founder of this website, a clear WP:COI. STATic message me! 20:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's notable on Billboard then it is notable, Therefore the article should not be deleted. Also the SOHH news site is a reliable source as far as hip hop news is concerned (especially within the context of non-recent historical record, which was my primary concern that invalidates the delete proposal initiated on account that the site lacked reliable source notability. That has now been addressed. Other issues like improvements and "more sources" can always be addressed on the talk page of the article. —Loginnigol (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, limited/no substantial third-party coverage. Stifle (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant / in-depth coverage in independent sources. wctaiwan (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2014 (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.