Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tactical Ops: Assault on Terror

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. czar 03:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tactical Ops: Assault on Terror

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable game. Only covered in two reviews [1][2], neither of which is enough to meet WP:GNG. Hakken (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of reviews, though I don't know what counts as a reputable source for that. -- Sander (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of coverage from reliable secondary sources. IGN review, GameSpot review, PC Gamer review, Computer Gaming World magazine review, GameSpy review, Jeuxvideo review, GameZone review, PC Games review, Electric Playground. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per sources presented above, many of which were at the MobyGames external link already in the article. What is up with all these big WP:BEFORE fails in the video game deletion discussions area lately? Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 6 October 2017 (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.