Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Clancy's Classic Trilogy

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 redirect to Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Clancy's Classic Trilogy

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

This information would likely be noted in the articles it relates to rather than have its own article, as it's merely a collection of three existing games without any notable changes. Jns4eva ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's pretty much just a disambiguation page at this point, when you get down to it. There just hasn't been enough coverage to really justify it having an article. We could always, at best, mention this in the articles. We could probably redirect this to the earliest game in the trilogy (I think it's Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon (video game)) and say "Tom Clancy's Classic Trilogy redirects here, for the other two games see ____ and ____". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Tokyogirl79. Somebody will come looking for it. Malke 2010 (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tom Clancy#Video games (to later expand out summary style). There are a fair number of hits in a WP:VG/RS search, but the main ones (from IGN) can be summarized in the Tom Clancy article, if even necessary to include at all. I'm surprised there isn't a Tom Clancy games overview article, but that would be the natural resting place once it exists. For now, Clancy's article is a fine location. However, this package itself does not have independent notability for its own article. czar ♔ 03:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2014 (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.