Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tales of Amalthea

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of Amalthea[edit]

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

Website that does not, at this point, pass Wikipedia:Notability (web)/Wikipedia:Notability. A websearch has not turned up any indication that this site is of historical significance as required, I found no reliable sources at all covering it in detail.
The one current indication of significance is that Terryl Whitlatch is contributing to it. Since notability is not inherited, this is not enough. Even though I like the name. Amalthea 20:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The keyword for me is "not officially put together yet." As we known, Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. —JmaJeremy ^TALK _CONTRIBS 21:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—And even when it is put together, it will need coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources in order to meet the WP:GNG. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 23:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article doesn't even clearly state what the article's subject is. "Online project"? At first I was guessing it's a video game of some sort or a collaborative book or a d20 system, but the website indicates that it's simply a "art instruction/creature design course", which the article doesn't really convey at all. The lack of reliable sources means that this article fails WP:GNG. - Sudo Ghost 04:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I added that. Johnbod (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is now some indication about what the article is about, but the article is still lacking any reliable third-party sources, and still fails WP:GNG. - Sudo Ghost 15:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page has few enough Google hits that it's possible to check them all and state that there are no independent references indexed by Google. With this sort of internet-based project it would be surprising to find references in print publications. So almost certainly non-notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per others I suppose, although it may needs resurrecting later when references appear. Johnbod (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:40, 16 March 2012 (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.