Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HotNewHipHop

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. MBisanz ^talk 17:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HotNewHipHop[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Website does not appear to meet WP: GNG, lack of significant independent coverage in reliable sources. StaticVapor message me! 22:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's true that reliable sources do not write about this website, but I'm going with WP:IAR to recommend keeping this article. The HotNewHipHop website gets a lot of traffic and has paid staff attending to it. Traffic is reported as 590,000 sessions per day, or 17.7 million sessions per month.[1] The writing has editorial oversight by Rose Lilah, editor-in-chief. Lilah is considered an expert on the topic, having been quoted in this book about the hip hop sub-genre of trap, and having been invited to speak on a panel about digital strategies in hip hop at SXSW 2018. A great many blogs have discussed this website in depth, comparing them to other hip hop sites and mixtape sites.[2][3][4][5] The very high traffic and the blog discussions indicate to me that the website is important. Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Random unknown blogs talking about them does not indicate notability, neither does their website being somewhat popular. StaticVapor message me! 20:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These days, "random unknown blogs" help check and move the pulse of journalism; their strong connection to it was acknowledged even 15 years ago in the journalistic community ("Is Blogging A New Form of Journalism?"). And a closer look at the aforementioned websites in Binksternet's comment also indicates some inherent notability. With the decline of print journalism and news media, such blogs may only grow in significance, so they should not be outright dismissed. Additionally, Google appears to index HotNewHipHop in its news search engine, more indication of popularity and readership. Dan56 (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sites linked above are far from notable publications to base notability off of. Google news also uses many sites, not all of them deserving of Wikipedia articles. If anyone can find significant non-passing mentions in reliable sources I have no problem withdrawing the nomination. Upon doing a WP: BEFORE I couldn't find anything. StaticVapor message me! 02:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still think we should keep the article simply because the website is very widely seen in the hip hop music world. This is one of those "Ignore all rules" moments where our standard of notability fails to match the stuff that's important to our readers. The website is important to the readers because of all the web traffic and high Alexa ranking. Our standard should include something like this, but it doesn't, so we as editors can make a judgment call. Binksternet (talk) 05:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While HotNewHipHop is popular and well-regarded within the hip hop community, it doesn't meet the general notability guideline and shouldn't have an article. Without independent reliable sources, it's impossible to write a significant article about HotNewHipHop without violating the verifiability and no original research policies. Wikipedia is not a directory of popular websites, and a subject should not have an article until the necessary sources exist to ensure that the subject can receive a fair and policy-compliant treatment. — Newslinger talk 08:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubbad85 (talk • contribs)
Delete. No significant media coverage. Fails WP:GNG. --Hiwilms (talk) 09:25, 29 March 2019 (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.