Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P2pnet

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P2pnet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Page is poorly written and structured along with only three sources, one being from the website itself. Most (>70%) of the information seems to have came from the author of the article and is not cited. M4sugared (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. M4sugared (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. M4sugared (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete These days, this topic would be dealt with in a niche subreddit, way out-of-date and opinionated writing, and very poorly sourced. Nate • (chatter) 23:08, 3 March 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.