Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Letter (2017 video game)

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!} 22:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Letter (2017 video game)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

It is a HEAVY dose of irony that The Letter (2014 video game) is notable simply for being so outright terrible while this game isn't, despite being much better in production values and having a much larger team, but unfortunately, this game seems to clearly fail WP:GNG. The Kotaku review is literally the only instance of WP:SIGCOV from a reliable source, and GNG requires several of them. There is a very short mention in TheGamer, but that source is not considered super-reliable in the best of times, and it's part of a listicle. The others are definitely unreliable sources. I would be happy to be proven wrong, but a thorough search into the matter comes up with nothing. (And yes, I also checked the archived link of the Siliconera article listed in the talk page; it is simply an announcement and not a review; I would not call it SIGCOV). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Removed unreliable sources from the article. I did find this, albeit just a news piece. IceWelder [✉] 14:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also looked over that and it did not seem nearly like SIGCOV. I think potentially the only saving grace could be any foreign language press that wouldn't come up in an English search, but the article certainly doesn't demonstrate any. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Other than the Kotaku review, the others (1, 2) are trivial news releases, so this doesn't meet WP:GNG, my WP:BEFORE search didn't find any more refs. VickKiang 10:12, 20 September 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.