Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grind (board game)


 * 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 Warmachine. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Grind (board game)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Tagged as Unclear Notability since September 2010; only references I can find are either the game for sale, or reviews from around the time of release, with no indication it's made a notable or lasting impact. Pokemonprime (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Pokemonprime (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)


 * What are the reviews you found? Depending on what kind they are, they can count toward notability. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep I've added two recent reviews, indicating that the game is still around. I've also added some detail about the game itself that readers may find useful. If the nominator is aware of reviews from 2009-2010, those should be added as well. Guinness323 (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Bobherry  Talk   Edits  02:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Guinness323, and at worst failing that it could be merged into a new section in Warmachine. BOZ (talk) 13:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Those arguing for keep need to show why the sources in the article should be accepted as indicating notability with reference to our guidelines WP:N and why the source review by PMC is not correct. Or else produce sources that are acceptable. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 12:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. There Will Be Games solicits content - including reviews and blog posts - from users, describing itself on its submissions page as a "volunteer, non-profit site". We don't accept user-generated sites as indicators of notability for obvious reasons. I don't see any indication that Bell of Lost Souls is any more reliable - no editorial policy or about page, and the post itself is credited to "guest columnist". TV Tropes and Board Game Geek are, of course, user-generated and shouldn't even be cited. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Being non-profit doesn't make a source unreliable. Neither does the pay rate of the writers.  What does is editorial control.  Their solicitation makes it clear they have editorial standards and they have a editorial staff.  Further, this article was written by one of their (former) associate writers.  Bell of Lost Souls is, I agree, quite similar but better known and respected IME.   shows a strong editorial team.  Hobit (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, for the reasons those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith  (talk | contribs) 11:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Warmachine per BOZ. I could not find any additional, reliable coverage of the game that would satisfy WP:GNG and allow this page to be a standalone. If the game reviews could be included in the discussion, that could make a stronger case for keeping the page. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * selective Merge to Warmachine, the universe in which the game is set. Probably meets WP:N but A) it's debatable (only two decent sources) and B) there just isn't much to write about.   Hobit (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete No evidence in the article or in this discussion that significant coverage in reliable, independent sources is available. All significant coverage appears to be in user-generated sources as notes.  Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 22:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * . What makes these things "user generated?"  Are you arguing there isn't editorial control or are you arguing something else?   And you are claiming they aren't independent?  Aren't reliable?  Could you clarify? Hobit (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.