Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attack Vector: Tactical


 * 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Attack Vector: Tactical

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I cannot find any reliable secondary sources or reviews with secondary coverage for this product apart from the fact it won an award. I did find a brief mention of it in an academic article but I don't think that's enough for WP:GNG. Furthermore, the only comment on the talk page after 13 years is "This seems like nothing more than a commercial for this product," and the article would need to be heavily cleaned up to pass WP:PROMO. SportingFlyer  T · C  23:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer  T · C  23:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Elms super 02:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is in a bad shape, but the question is - is this product notable? Reviews: borderline (rather short, poorly formatted - old page?, and is the site notable?), and frankly I don't see anything better. But the article does have a claim that "Attack Vector: Tactical won the Origins Award in 2004 for "Best New Miniatures Game" (2004 Origins Award winners), and that is a major award in the board gaming world (and it is verifiable: ). I also found a brief mention of the game in (hardly in-depth). I expected to find some more stuff out there, but I am not finding anything. I think the Origins award gives this game a borderline pass, although see Notability (video games) section on awards (and while it is about video games, the same logic applies). If we could find some reviews... maybe in some non-digitized sources? There are magazines and such for wargame fans, I think. Even though I cannot find reviews, the game got an entry in the SF Encyclopedia:, and we do have the rule of thumb that topics good enough for other encyclopedias are good enough for us. I think this should stay. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per above comments and per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 13:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Piotr above.  // Timothy ::  talk  17:28, 10 November 2020 (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.