Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War in the Pacific (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 delete. ansh 666 02:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

War in the Pacific (video game)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG Coin945 (talk) 02:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - strategic wargames are not that widely popular or covered in media as shooter-like games but if you ask someone of the wargamer community about this game you'll get something like an epic monster wargame. AFAIR it's the only strategic wargame covering air/land/sea actions in the pacific 1941-45. --Denniss (talk) 11:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - GameRankings list a Review by Computer Gaming World, as well as mentions on GameSpot, as well as a review here by Bovine Conspiracy. Lee Vilenski(talk) 16:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Mobygames also lists only the CGW and Bovine Conspiracy reviews, and Metacritic lists no reviews at all, which makes me suspect those two are the only reviews of the game out there from notable/reliable publications. I tried Goodsearch but came up with only primary sources, bulletin boards, and the occasional Youtube video. Denniss's rationale is little more than WP:ILIKEIT, and being known among the hardcore fanbase of the genre is not a mark of distinction; if I wanted to know more about a particular strategic wargame, I would certainly hope at least one member of the community would be able to tell me about it, however obscure it is.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- too obscure to meet WP:NGAME; the present review are insufficient to meet WP:SIGCOV. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2018 (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.