Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peeron

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. If someone find more sources then this can be recreated. Will userfy or incubate upon request. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peeron

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

Can't find any RS for this article, just forum posts and the website itself. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 15:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is RS? I'm still adding more sources and external references, if that is what you meant. Please don't delete this, it is relevant. --ArachanoxReal (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it does suffer from single-source-only problems, but there are many other articles out there that do as well. I'm sure this will improve as time goes by. Can we please close this and not delete the article? I'm pretty sure it's not irrelevant so it does have its right to exist I believe.

--ArachanoxReal (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that other articles are sourced in the same fashion as this one does not make it acceptable. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also, the problem isn't that the article relies on a single source, its that none of the sources are independent of the subject. That is a very common reason for deleting articles. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 16:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It seems to be a reasonably well-known site, but it lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. I do find it mentioned and listed as a resource but that's not sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if some more RS could be found that would be tend towards a "keep" in my opinion. Other sites mention and link to it, do any of them comment on it? At the moment it doesn't look like a keep. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2011 (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.