Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lands of Hope

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lands of Hope

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

Fails WP:N and WP:V: non-notable video game with no references based on reliable, third-party published sources. The current sources are all primary. There is mention of a review in PC Gamer issue 158, which should be February 2007, but nothing about its contents, length, author, etc. I am unable to find any trace of it. Of course, sources need not appear online, but the article only notes that a review exists and does not use it as a source. Even so, a single unavailable source doesn't allow us to write an article, nor does it make a subject notable. All other sources I've found are primary (including press releases) or unreliable third-party such as forums. Woodroar (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Woodroar (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable third-party references or other indication of why this game is notable or significant. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one WP:VG/RS hit, and no other substantial coverage. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources (?) enough to build a full article. No suitable merge targets. Recommending the same for its offshoot, Lands of Hope Redemption. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 16:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nowhere near enough reliable sources to meet WP:N Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 10:20, 27 July 2014 (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.