Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Grenade (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 keep. WP:SNOW keep - reviews from more than several magazines that have since been added to the article show that this game passes WP:GNG. Whether they are "specialized" is not relevant for notability purposes as long as they are secondary sources. (non-admin closure) ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Operation Grenade (game)

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

Only sources listed in the article are published by the same company as the one that made the game, so are not independent. Other reviews are claimed to exist, but nothing is known about their length, independence, reliability, ... Looking for sources beyond the highly specialized magazines gave no usable results. Fram (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * KEEP I have added another, more independent source of information (the French language wargaming magazine Frog of War), as well as a new "other review", Casus Belli, another independent French magazine. The "other reviews" already listed are very likely full-length and in-depth reviews, since that is the purpose of those magazines. I am trying to track down copies, hopefully soon. Guinness323 (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * keep sources appear to be enough. As a note on the nom's statement, the magazine "Moves" appears to have been owned by TSR, not SPI, when the review was published. Hobit (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Independent citations have been added to the article and several independent reviews seems to exist. RoseCherry64 (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.