Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stiff Jab

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 03:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stiff Jab

[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)

Topic cannot meet WP:GNG. Nothing in this article constitutes Notability or SIGCOV about the topic itself nor have I found it online. This is a Medium.com website. The bottom line of the first paragraph reads, "Unlike most online boxing sites, Stiff Jab is considered a credible news source, as evidenced by the many websites[13] and journalists[14][15] who link[16] to its content." There has to be multiple, independent RS with SIGCOV to constitute GNG for Wikipedia's purposes. Source 1 is about a pro boxer and topic receives a trivial, 5 word mention in the article as "a prominent boxing Web site". Source 2 is an interview with the topic's founder and Joe Frazier on NPR. No coverage about topic. Source 3 is an interview with the topic's founder about Muhammad Ali, not the topic. Source 4 is a trivial mention at the bottom of the page regarding a Detroit Free Press interview, which is again, not about the topic. Source 5 is unavailable. There is no mention of topic in Source 6. Source 7 is a video from MSNBC where the topic's founder, whom was introduced as a staff writer for the Wall Street Journal, makes a few comments about Floyd Mayweather v Manny Pacquiao. The source is not about the topic itself again. Source 8 is an article written by the founder himself for the Wall Street Journal, which does not make it a NPOV source. Source 9 is another trivial mention on the bottom of the page. Source 10 is another article written by the founder himself which does not make it a NPOV source. Source 11 is a guest article from Stiff Jab editor posted on Ring.com. There is no content about the topic itself in this source, nor is the topic even mentioned. Source 12 is unavailable. Source 13 is a link to a Stiff Jab article written by the founder. Source 14 is a quote from the topic's founder. The article is not about the topic at all. Source 15 I read through twice and did not find a mention of the topic. Source 16 references the topic's founder writing a boxing article for the Washington Post. Source 17 is a link to the founder's personal LinkedIn profile. Source 18, no mention of topic. Source 19, no mention of topic. Source 20 is unavailable. Source 21 references Source 22, which is an article written by the topic's founder on NPR.org. I suppose if the topic's founder has a relationship with NPR, as he does other new's sources, I'm unsure how the sources could constitute NPOV in any capacity when he writes the articles. Regardless, the source is still not about the topic. Source 23 is an article directly from topic's own website. Source 24 is a Medium.com blog post copied and pasted from the topic's own website. Source 25 is unavailable. Source 26 is an article from the topic's own website. Source 27 is another article from the topic's own website. I apologize for the long winded nom here my fellow editors, but this looks like WP:CITEKILL. There are nearly 30 citations on this page and not 1 of them covers the topic. I wanted to go through them one by one before I nominated it as I read on the topic's talk page about how notable this topic is. In addition to the lack of coverage, the assertion in the opening line of the article that the topic is frequently cited by journalists and publications only applies to 2 of the sources, and I don't even know if they could be considered NPOV because the topic's founder has a relationship to them. Megtetg34 (talk) 02:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing significant coverage of the subject. Sandals2 (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2022 (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.