Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FindingDulcinea

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. postdlf (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FindingDulcinea

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

Website which does not appear to meet the WP:GNG general guidelines for notability. There are a few references, generally amounting to 2 or 3 sentence blurbs in an reliable publications, but none of these amount to in-depth coverage. Everything I find on google I would consider "trivial" coverage. This was supposed to be the "next big thing" back in 2008, but it doesn't appear to have come to fruition as such, and given the lack of depth in the coverage of this topic, it is likely not notable enough for Wikipedia. Jayron32 20:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree; for what it's worth, I'd never heard of it before browsing the wikification backlog and judging by my Google search, in 2+ years it doesn't seem to have gotten far enough off the ground. Sounds like a good idea, more difficult in execution.--Wi2g (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I Completely agree with the reasoning stated above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightenbelle (talk • contribs) 15:35, 10 April 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.