Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lozenge and Hampshire

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. The "weak keep" opinions are weak indeed, and one of them ultimately supports deletion. Sandstein 20:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lozenge and Hampshire

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

Fails WP:N. Google doesn't bring up any third-party sources, has not been mentioned in any relevant video game news outlet. Soetermans. T / C 13:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep-Could use some improvement. Wgolf (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a policy-based argument for keeping? Unless WP:RS significant coverage can be found, there is nothing to improve.Dialectric (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It did not have any hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets since no video game sources confirm the game's existence. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 21:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I'm interested in Hampshire related articles but, not... this... I'm going to find some primary sources for this as this seems salvagable. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 11:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What it needs is secondary source coverage (?) to show what unaffiliated sources think of the topic, not primary sources, which will, of course, always exist. czar ⨹ 13:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found a somewhat descriptive entry for MobyGames for one of the series' games I know MobyGames is unreliable as it relies on user-submitted content, but that was the only decent description I could find. The game looks pretty awful for December 2000. What I don't understand is that it's a fairly contemporary game series and there are almost no sources for it. I've seen other black holes for some games on the internet but a search from the VG custom search engine finds nothing on the series. Somebody asked what happened to Lozenge and Hampshire but I can see why this is up for deletion if there are no sources. I don't think this is salvagable, so sadly I would support a deletion unless something comes up. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 15:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software (game) article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 12:48, 11 April 2015 (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.