Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broken Sword 2.5: The Return of the Templars

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 merge to Broken Sword. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Sword 2.5: The Return of the Templars[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Broken Sword 2.5: The Return of the Templars" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

I could not find significant coverage in any reliable sources. Delete per WP:GNG. Odie5533 (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2011 (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) 16:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources (Broken Sword 2.5 official website and Facebook page) are reliable sources, because they're OFFICIAL pages and made by the Broken Sword 2.5 creators/developers.--7arazred (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Offical" may be reliable in this case, however WP:GNG requires secondary sources, not primary ones. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep—It's been covered for Wired by former contributing writer Jean Snow.[1] There's also a review on MobyGames.[2] Regards, RJH (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The MobyGames review you are referring to is user-submitted content, not a reliable source. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about these reviews: [3]? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge - Use the Wired article for verification in the Broken Sword article. A single sentence summary will suffice. The reviews listed at MobyGames are on sites that, as far as I can tell, would not pass as reliable sources. Marasmusine (talk) 08:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just Adventure is reliable (WP:VG/RS). A few are considered (like GameStar Germany) but so far no one has built consensus for them. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ooh, okay. I agree with a merge, then: probably worth a full paragraph. Marasmusine (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to series article. Don't think this needs a separate article for now per WP:SPLIT. Although this may barely meet notability criteria, there is not enough content to warrant a separate article. It can be fully covered in a few properly sourced paragraphs in the series article. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a well known free version of the classic Broken Sword. --♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey ^{it's me} 18:42, 4 October 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.