Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prey 2

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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash! ^(Y) 00:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prey 2

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

Prey 2 has been cancelled, according to a statement from developers Bethesda Softworks during PAX Australia 2014. This debate is to give a final disposition to this cancelled game. Shawn Is Here: Now in colors 01:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 01:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 01:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:NPRODUCT and WP:GNG, see the plethora of reliable sources in references. Cancellation alone does not disqualify a topic from having an article. Esquivalience ^t 01:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article's current sourcing is reliable and fine, but there's even more in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. czar ⨹ 01:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sourcing seems more than sufficient to allow me to feel comfortable about keeping this as a standalone article. I wouldn't exactly oppose a proposition to merge it into Prey (video game)#Sequel but I don't think it is necessary -- at this point, it would be an editorial content decision. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not a good nomination. There are a ton of sources already in the article, and even more to be found upon searching. As Salv says above, sometimes when this happens its appropriate to merge it to the original game's article, but there's plenty of content available already in the article, so that's not a good choice either. Sergecross73 msg me 16:17, 6 May 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.