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 merge to Civil War (game). czar 00:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Civil War (1988 video game) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

This article fails WP:SIGCOV as I was unable to find ANY sources discussing this game specifically. Based on some quick searching, I do not believe this article is sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion and also I do not think there are sufficient independent reliable sources to support it. I considered merging into the article about the board game it is based on ( Civil War (game), but given how little information there seems to be about the video game itself and the lack of sources, I am not sure whether that is the right call (and tend to think not). So I am nominating to generate consensus on that. DocFreeman24 ( talk) 22:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I was able to find a couple of sources discussing the game—they're on the talk page now. Just want to note that this game's title (it's variously called "Civil War", "The Civil War" and "The Civil War 1861–1865") is nearly unsearchable on Google because of the number of false positives. Given the three sources already located, I have little doubt that more exist, but finding them would likely require someone more knowledgeable than I am about late-1980s game magazines. JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 23:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks for finding these! These are pretty minor mentions however? Like, the first source is two sentences of discussion in a fairly obscure magazine. And, while the second has slightly more content (two columns of text), it still seems fairly brief and one-off. I'm certainly open to being persuaded otherwise, but this just doesn't seem like "significant coverage" to me. And, just for context, I think I take a pretty liberal view towards notability in the video game context. I've reviewed quite a number of pages for relatively obscure video games from the 1980s and 1990s and this game stood out as being particularly obscure. Of course, the goal is to build consensus so, if others see it differently, we keep the page. But this one just seems like a hard one to justify to me. DocFreeman24 ( talk) 02:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment would it make more sense to merge this with the article about the board game? Balle010 ( talk) 01:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the comment. I definitely agree that, as a general rule, merging is preferred to deleting. However, as I mentioned above, the lack of reliable sources is a bit of an issue. The second source that JimmyBlackwing found could be sufficient, but its a close call to me. DocFreeman24 ( talk) 02:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Merge does't seem like it requires an independent page. Merge this content with page Civil War (Game) makes sense. 10SFan ( talk) 01:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Civil War (game). While there are some sources that discuss the adaptation, they are all pretty brief, and do not appear to be enough to warrant this being split from the main article. The article on the board game already has a section discussing the adaptation, so just merging over the brief reception on it should be sufficient coverage. Rorshacma ( talk) 18:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Civil War (game) would be the best solution. TH1980 ( talk) 04:05, 29 November 2020 (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.