Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Grinder (video 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 High Voltage Software. czar 06:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Grinder (video game)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The game was never released and only early footage and screenshots were released, so it does not seem like it should have an entry.The Editor 155 (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article also lists the game as being for Wii, PS3, and Xbox 360, although those systems have long been discontinued.The Editor 155 (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to High Voltage Software, where for some odd reason it isn't even mentioned. I can't find that it was ever previewed in any greater detail, the only coverage about it being through interviews (which counts as WP:PRIMARY), or WP:ROUTINE announcements. And so, it fails to meet WP:GNG for the lack of significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. Heist (video game) is a good example of a cancelled video game that was extensively covered pre-cancellation, and this one doesn't even come close, sadly. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would there be enough notable content for a merger?The Editor 155 (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just the main development info to their history section, not really much. WP:ATD applies, which prefers redirect/merge when or if possible to deletion. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good idea, because most of the content in The Grinder article would not be notable in itself.The Editor 155 (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The best source is that Nintendo Life source[1]. It's just one source, but notice that it's dated ten years after the game was set to release. There are released games that don't get media coverage a decade later. So this is probably more notable than most dead games that show up to AFD. ApLundell (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But is the information in the Nintendo Life source notable enough for the game to have its own article?The Editor 155 (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not Nintendo Life's original reporting, but just a share of Unseen64's video. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I hadn't noticed that. When I looked at it earlier, for some reason I thought the video was produced by Nintendo Life. (I'll admit I've gotten into the habit of skipping the first third of any embedded video.) You're right. That weakens it. ApLundell (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So do you think the information is notable?The Editor 155 (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A bit, maybe. I mostly wanted to call attention to that source because it's got more meat to it than the sources for this type of article usually have. (Usually it's an press release from two years before the scheduled release ... and nothing else.) ApLundell (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think should happen with The Grinder Wikipedia article?The Editor 155 (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. There are plenty of sources with varying depth available, especially with the Liam Robertson/Nintendo Life source above (which I do believe is reliable). However, the article is in very poor shape and should be entirely reworked before it is brought back to mainspace. IceWelder [✉] 08:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 05:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the other merge !voter above. Only thing salvageable is the "Development" section; everything else is hearsay. ~EdGl talk 18:00, 26 January 2021 (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.