Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual battlefield

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 Military simulation. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual battlefield[edit]

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

~~Is this a neologism? Coin945 (talk) 01:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)~~ Fails WP:GNG--Coin945 (talk) 01:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep SK1 - nominator does not advance a deletion rationale. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Struck as rationale provided. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to military simulation._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Zx. A redirect to military simulation seems most-fitting. --Izno (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect appears to be the best solution here, I think, as it would be a valid search term. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above SeraphWiki (talk) 12:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above - Can't say much else, it's not a standalone article. Lee Vilenski(talk) 16:18, 4 January 2018 (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.