Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canonfire! (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canonfire!

[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)

Article is about a website with 6,640 unique visitors per month (per Similarweb) and is sourced entirely to itself. This has been the state of affairs for the last 14 years, during which no RS have emerged. My final, pre-deletion WP:BEFORE searched newspapers.com, JSTOR, Google News, and Google Books and was still unable to locate any RS. Chetsford (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also cannot find any coverage of this website in independent secondary sources. I also reviewed the sources presented in the original AfD and none of them demonstrate notability either - forum posts, for instance. I'm happy to review any sources presented, but based on the previous AfD I'd be exceptionally wary of any !votes which claim notability without referencing any sources. SportingFlyer T·C 19:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll normally go pretty far to save an article . . . but there ain't no savin' this one at least based on what I can see from my WP:BEFORE. Just coverage on forums and the like or brief mentions elsewhere. I'd also support merging with World of Greyhawk just to WP:PRESERVE but the site really just isn't notable. FOARP (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was also unable to find any reliable sources discussing this website. The prior AFD that resulted in Keep did so on the claim that the site itself could be used as a source to pass the GNG, which, of course, is not a valid argument at all. It does not appear to have ever been notable enough to either keep as a stand alone article, nor merged into any other article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:33, 24 July 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.