Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dark Eye: Skilltree Saga

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. Squeaks by with Weak Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Eye: Skilltree Saga

The Dark Eye: Skilltree Saga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Sources don't come close to passing

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Games, and Germany. ––FormalDude talk 11:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:ATD. Does not seem to be standalone notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Keep or Merge per
  WP:VGRS, so it's hence a likely RS that is probably SIGCOV. In this case, we have 2 refs counting to GNG, so it's very borderline, but I'm open to either merging or keeping. IMHO, after a couple of days this could be closed as keep. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep. According to
  WP:SIGCOV. Same for gamepressure (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#www.gry-online.pl). IGN is reliable but the review is video or too short too meet SIGCOV. The article is a substub that needs expansion but I see no compelling reason to redirect this right now. Expansion seems warranted. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I disagree, as there is all right content from an RS, probably selecively merging the content from the refs would be better. I've read it, and it is quite negative without too much info, but still okay for merging. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get firmer consensus to redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I still oppose just a redirect- there may be criticism that the Eurogamer review isn't very informative, but it's still a RS with good info I feel is worth preserving.
  Jovanmilic97, is there really nothing here that could be briefly mentioned in that article? Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 07:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• weak keep per Piotrus, sourcing seems above the bar though not great. Hobit (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just scrapes by on
  WP:SIGCOV, as per Piotr. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like a stronger move now to Keep, rather than redirect or merge this article. Let's give it a little more time to solidify.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep per Piotrus. I also found this short test in German which does read independent (they're not impressed by the game), although I'm not sure about the reliability of the site. --LordPeterII (talk) 10:05, 14 August 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.