Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sohh


 * 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 of the debate was Delete. Johntex\talk 02:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Sohh
(As of this version) Unencyclopedic. The whole page is full of nonsense, and libelous comments. Also, an article about the posters of an online forum is not encyclopedic. --Ragib 04:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete: Nonsense, incoherent, and full of libelous comments. --Ragib 04:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Nacon kantari  04:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. The site appears to be notable under the old WP:WEB guidelines (Alexa ranking of 5,880, forum with 72,915 members), but it does not seem to fit the new ones. At least, I couldn't find references in the web from notable and reliable sources, but if someone can provide them I would change my vote. If the article stays, though, I suggest reverting to a better version and semi protecting the article per the WP:AN suggestion. I suggest adding a newbie deletion warning, as we are likely to get quite a good number of anonymous votes. -- ReyBrujo 05:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. ''Em-jay-es  05:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.-- Andeh 07:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Coredesat 08:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete per ReyBrujo. -- SomeStrang  e  r ( t 11:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete and protect from recreation. After removing all the crap about who the most thuggiest posters on their forums are (or whatever it was), the article is nothing more than 'SOHH.com is a website about hiphop'.     Proto    ||    type    12:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Revert and protect to a version similar to the one I put together here. In retrospect, Sonning has got to go. The site seems notable enough on its own. That the userbase seems unwilling to comprehend Wikipolicies implies an inability to develop this page. When I initially cleaned this page up, I was hoping it would just...be. I digress. W e s! &#149; Tc 12:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per ReyBrujo.--Isotope23 13:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems to be a magnet for abuse, as well as unencyclopedic topics.--Auger Martel 16:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The site seems notable in and of itself. We really ought not to delete articles just because they're favourite targets for vandals.  As it stands, it's reasonably well written and encyclopaedic, if lacking in content. WilyD 18:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It's fine now. I hope everyone will go back and reconsider their vote. --Liface 20:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete its ranked high, but there is no real content here other than some claims that it doesn't back up. Unless there are some sources and useful content added it shoudln't be kept at this time. --Crossmr 00:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete doesn't really meet WP:WEB, i think. M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 (T 01:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. New version needs expansion. --JJay 23:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't meet WEB guidelines. '  (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 23:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Question: What guideline are you specifically referring to? I was stunned to find how vague WP:WEB is.  I've seen "Alexa ranking" and "Google test" used for notability guidelines that I thought they were defined and part of the guidelines...they weren't, it appears. Hbdragon88 01:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * An old version (if I recall correctly) of WP:WEB requested Alexa ranking better than 10,000, or a forum with over 5,000 members. The new one requires the site to be notable not according to the amount of traffic it gets, but instead the repercusion of the website in the media, giving opportunity to small sites that has been featured at different dates and for different reasons in CNN, eWeek, New York Times, and other notable publications. From what I saw, this site has a great following, but has have little repercusion in the media (at least, I couldn't find it featured anywhere). -- ReyBrujo 01:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The current version is decent; although it's a stub, it no longer has the concerns that the original poster had. A need for cleanup doesn't call for AFD; it calls for cleanup. Hbdragon88 01:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.