Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muckgers (2nd nomination)


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 01:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Muckgers
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Student blog with little indication of notability, and heavy reliance on self-published sources. Apparently broke one story that received some national coverage. First AfD received no input aside from the nominator (myself) and the article creator (who has an apparent conflict of interest, as a founder of the publication), so I am re-nominating to seek a real consensus. —Swpbtalk 15:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. —Swpbtalk 15:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Swpbtalk 15:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. —Swpbtalk 15:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Swpbtalk 15:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article has a lot of citations, but they're not of much use in establishing notability. Virtally all citations were based not only on a single event, but rather on Muckgers' coverage of that event (all other events in the article cite only the Muckers web site itself). Many major news sources are mentioned as citations -- but these articles either don't even mention Muckgers, or at most spend a few words on it. The most in-depth coverage -- again about coverage of the same single event -- is by a couple of local Rutgers sites: a Rutgers student newspaper, and another student run site whose mission is creating "articles with an op-ed flair." --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: Yep, a tidal wave of refs, no mistake, but this article seems like a coatrack for this scandal. Of the actual reliable sources in the article (SI, ESPN, USA Today), none mention the subject at all.  The school newspaper mentions the subject, but only to jeer at it for a lack of ethics and integrity.  Created by a SPA whose name suggests he's the fellow behind the muckraking in the first place, making this a huge COI.  (His only other Wikipedia activity is to make an article about his father - Yefim Galperin - which doesn't look to me to clear the notability bar.) Nha Trang 19:59, 15 October 2014 (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.