Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action in the North Atlantic (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. ✗ plicit  03:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Action in the North Atlantic (video game)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:GNG. Seemingly lacks any coverage outside of sole passing review in Computer Gaming World. ben ǝʇᴉɯ 01:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC) Co-nominating Battleship Bismarck: Operation Rhine - May 1941 for the same reasons. ben ǝʇᴉɯ 02:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  ben ǝʇᴉɯ  01:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Being an old game, it's entirely possible we are missing old print sources. However, we can't assume they exist. Mobygames (itself unreliable, but a good source for finding reviews that may be reliable) has one the only CGW review listed, where many old games often have several print magazines listed. There's unsurprisingly no hits in WP:VG/S's search engine. -- ferret (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing on Newspapers.com either. Timur9008 (talk) 15:09 ,14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing found other than war films about the period the game is set in. Can easily be re-created if some offline/paper source turns up. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete According to MobyGames, General Quarters Software seems to have developed only six games, all sharing similar gameplay to that of Avalon Hill's Under Southern Skies. All games by that company with stub articles should also be AfD-ed. Other than being stubs, they don't seem to have notability. -Vipz (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not sure what additional sources BOZ found but they certainly are not mentioned in the article. And if he believes GNG can be passed with a single source, then that is not Wikipedia policy. So in lieu of any other sources being presented, it should be deleted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.