This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Role-playing games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of role-playing games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Role-playing gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing gamesTemplate:WikiProject Role-playing gamesrole-playing game articles
@Piotrus: Sigh. BGG has loads of links mostly for two games (1, 2, I've taken three of the okay-looking sites, and put them into the article. The first and second seem promising, they are probably generally to marginally reliable (the latter more likely), but the first one actually has an editorial policy (probably) here (see also their about us at the bottom of the website). For the second ref, I am unsure, somehow, Google Translate isn't working and I can't find their about us page, although I think I encountered this site before (or not?), and there's a moderate chance that it might be generally or marginally reliable, depending on if they have about us and editorial policies. Third one doesn't look so good, I think it's generally unreliable, and I don't think it counts towards GNG. But considering the loads of web links on BGG, and the fact that there's 2700 ratings, this game was probably quite popular back then despite its low rating of 6.1 (I never heard of it), but it's probably niche now. So, if this is at an AfD, I would probably vote weak delete, but it depends on if there are any more refs there that's reliable. Still, this PROD I feel is controversial considered the loads of refs, so IMO could you take this to AfD if desired? Many thanks for your help! VickKiang (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VickKiang Thank you for looking for sources, you found more than I did, but I concur, we only have 1 reliable review here, the second source has no editorial policy/information about the authors (the author is anonymous, "Blue"), and the third is generally not a RS. Btw, we might as well add info about these three sites to BGRS (I suggest you copy this section to the discussion page firsts for a preserved record). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: This has been closed as keep, with Hobit and BOZ supporting keeping. Though, the article is horribly long, filled with puffery, very long gameplay descriptions, and descriptions that are copyvios from the publisher's website, see 1. I've rm these and trimmed it, but will add a Reception section later. By the way I also rm the RPG Net ref, it's like an user generated site without any editorial policies. VickKiang (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are fair. Article condition is neither a rationale to keep or delete, so just because an article is kept does not mean it does not need cleanup. :) BOZ (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
