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 but add references. Davewild (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grand strategy game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Not a notable genre. Sometimes grand strategy is mentioned in the context of other strategy games, but not enough to qualify it as a unique genre. Violates 1: not notable, 2: original research, 3: overcategorization —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomran (talk • contribs) 07:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete recommend leaving it the main strategy game article as a minor variation on a real genre. Randomran (talk) 07:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom, original research (arguably also a neologism) Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per below. SharkD (talk) 07:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability - Here are some articles that call the games "grand strategy game" (the most common), "grand strategy wargame" (probably the best, in terms of defining the genre—a rename might be in order) or "grand strategy simulation" (only once, IIRC) by independant reviewers: Wargamer, Wargamer, Armchair Genral, Armchair General, AtomicGamer, Yahoo! Games, Eurogamer (lots of "halves", probably a weak example), Deaf Gamers, IGN, Strategy Informer, GameDaily (AOL), Wargamer, Wargamer, Deaf Gamers, GameSpy, GameSpy.SharkD (talk) 06:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are some articles where the games are called "grand strategy games" by developers (and therefore not independant): Matrix Games and Magnetar Games, Battlefront.com and Hussar Games, Strategy First, Battlefront.com, The Creative Assembly, Strategy First and Malfador Machinations, Paradox Interactive, Paradox Interactive, Paradox Interactive, Global Agenda.SharkD (talk) 06:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following articles explicitely call "grand strategy" a "genre": Strategy Gaming Online (UGO), GameSpot, VideoGamer, Flash of Steel (developer interview; the statement itself was made by a reviewer who's worked for various gaming magazines[1]), PC Gamer, Armchair Empire, Strategy Informer, CNET, Monsters & Critics, Armchair General, Gameplanet Store (maybe not reliable, though Gameplanet is[2]), tothegame (looks like a copy-paste job of a publisher press release), Strategic Command 2 Blitzkrieg News (developer/webmaster's words summarizing an Armchair General article about the game), Total Gamer Zone (maybe not reliable), Eurogamer, Firing Squad, Hearts of Iron Anthology release notes (not reliable), Tacticular Cancer (not reliable)—SharkD (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original Research - I haven't personally looked closely enough at the above links to back up the article with references. I did notice that the first article linked to above covered a lot of the points raised. SharkD (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overcategorization - This is an article, not a category. SharkD (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per SharkD. Also, this is an article about a genuine, notable group of wargames. I have added some better examples, which make more clear the true scope of this subgenre. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is a notable and distinct tyoe of wargame and is widely distinguished, and identified by this term, from other kinds of stategy games. Moheroy (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Grand Strategy is a well-established term in military science and the genre of wargames covering it is likewise clear. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. An extant, significant, highly distinct genre. --Kizor 20:21, 30 November 2007 (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.