Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeoneer (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. Although this seems like a Weak Keep (or even a Reluctant Keep). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Dungeoneer (game)

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Dungeoneer (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Board game that likely fails WP:GNG. User:VickKiang deprodded is as they found one seemingly reliable review (in German), but the other sources found don't appear to be RS, so with just one review GNG requirement of multiple sources meeting SIGCOV does not appear to be met. Prior discussion of sources is here: Talk:Dungeoneer (game). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Games. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
• PS. Polish magazine Rebel Times, which me and Vic are leaning towards seeing as reliable, did review one of their six stand-alone games: [1] Dungeoneer: Grobowiec Króla Nieumarłych -> that's Dungeoneer: Tomb of the Lich Lord. So now we have two arguably reliable reviews. I might have jumped the gun here (should've checked the Rebel Times archive first, will do next time). The notability may be borderline now. What do you think? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

*Comment @Piotrus: This is probably the most borderline AfD I've been so far. I find Rebel Times to be probably reliable, it seems to be an okay ref, the cover designs for the older issues feel unprofessional, but newer issues seem to be better. The coverage is extensive for sure, and that's easily one ref for GNG. What about the other site? I don't see their editors having much expertise, but they also publish other refs, including a magazine, I tried to search for some info online on the editors, but failed to find them appearing in other RS. So whether it's an RS needs a lot of debate, though it's definitely Option 1.5-2 if this is at an Wikipedia:RfC, right between generally and marginally reliable, probably closer to the latter, but given the few available refs on BTG, I don't think the guidelines for refs are that stringent. We've seen other articles (probably worse in refs?) being debated at game-related AfDs, but this is very borderline and it's open to interpretation. Still, I guess that as it's very borderline, and there might be other refs in older magazines, considering the game having loads of BGG ratings and even appearing on the Polish magazine, I might assume there could be one more RS somewhere? Of course, this is quite close to WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, and the notability is very, very debatable. I would go with neutral to weak keep, not weak delete, but I won't vote for now as the notability is very borderline. If more other editors vote keep, I might keep my vote if it helps to establish a better consensus. Many thanks!

• Keep. @Piotrus: Currently, this article gets an easy keep from me. I've added a couple of refs. Right now, the article has 3 or 4 refs meeting GNG. I added two Pyramid reviews, a well-known magazine we consider to be an RS. Rebel Times is also another easy ref to count towards GNG. The other link is debatable, if it's an RS, there's four refs counting towards GNG, if not, then three. Anyway, only 2+ are needed, in this case, 3 or 4 refs make an easy keep vote from me. Considering that you said hopefully someone will dig at least one more decent source, at which point I'd be happy to withdraw my nomination, I think this could be withdrawn as keep, as Pyramid is a good ref as long as the one cited isn't a capsule review or if it's from its own company (in this case, it's not), if not, there'd probably be consensus for keep. Of course, this is a niche game still, searching directly from Google couldn't find much results, only when I tried to search the web links from BGG, or checking some of the magazine websites (I guess Pyramid isn't indexed much) could these refs be found. Still, the article is poor, probably have a fan pov with a horrible gameplay section. As I haven't played the game nor read the rulebook, and don't have access to all of the refs, it'd be probably better for someone else to do these (I think I pinged BOZ and Guinness323, as they do lots of work on articles for older games from magazines, books), but I support this article be kept, albeit the other games with unrefed parts be trimmed and rm. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  Hopefully someone will dig at least one more decent source, at which point I'd be happy to withdraw my nomination. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  @BOZ: @Guinness323: Based on the low traffic of game related AfDs, I think BOZ and Guinness323 are fairly involved in these AfDs and done some to keep articles, see the Australia (board game), and maybe Angriff, as some work has been for also, so I’ve pinged them. VickKiang (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment @Piotrus: Added new source, unsure of whether it's an RS though. There's an about us, and review system, but probably no policies, though, one of its editors is well-known and a subject matter expert with WP page, see Arno Steinwender. Added another two Pyramid reviews, see article, and support keeping the article. VickKiang (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  @VickKiang Aren't the Pyramid reviews "capsule" mentions, too short to warrant WP:SIGCOV? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Piotrus: I think the review suggests that there’s more content, I’d expect they clearly mark their capsule reviews? VickKiang (talk) 07:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  @VickKiang So you think those are just snippets? If we can verify this, I'd agree GNG is met, but we can't assume that. The visible text is very brief and does not suggest there is more clearly. Hmmm, who can help? User:BOZ? User:Guinness323? Nobody listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Board_and_table_games/Resources#Reliable_reference_archive seems to have it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I'm probably assuming, but at the end of each, they end with ..., and the sentences seem to be incomplete. Of course, that's my speculation, but I saw a lot of Pyramid articles being like this, with ... presumably saying there's more? VickKiang (talk) 07:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@VickKiang Hmmm, true, I missed that. Your argument is stronger. I'd like to see at least one such sample article and compare it to the full version to see if we can expect SIGCOV. Sigh, it's such a shame that this magazine is not online. I wonder how many ppl actually read the physical copy? 50? Double sigh. Such a dinosaur in the digital era. Not that it's uncommon. Polish prime sf/f magazine, Nowa Fantastyka, is just like that too (it has some reliable reviews and such too that are next to impossible to even locate, their ToC is not well digitized either). What a waste... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd try to find one, they do have some short sample PDFs for each volume, but it seems to be more about the contents. Of course, others, such as Arcane, aren't online at all, this required $6 (probably) each, but considering its nicheness and it being no longer in print, it's strange that payment is still required. VickKiang (talk) 08:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a business. Stuff like Rebel Times or Esensja being made available to all is still an exception, and, arguably, not a great business model :( Shame this stuff is so chaotic we can't get any sort of subscription through Wikipedia library etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment @Piotrus: @BOZ: As this has been relisted, IMO we need to decide on whether the Pyramid is SIGCOV. I'm pinging Piotrus (AfD nom) and BOZ, who I had a discussion with here. Maybe Guinness323 could help with this also. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I am leaning towards yes, but sigh, how osbscure is their archive that nobody here claims to have access to it? I wonder if we can get a subscription to it through WP:LIBRARY... Hmmm. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  If you do, let me know, I'd be the first person to sign up! :) BOZ (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  @BOZ Watch this space? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Pyramid is a reliable source, and the ellipsis articles are the opening sections of actual reviews. Newimpartial (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• I agree that Pyramid meets WP:RS. Not a great article, nor is it likely to be one. And apparently not a great game. I'd not hugely object to a good merge target, but a soft keep is where I'm at. Hobit (talk) 02:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oh, the review from Pyramid in the link is certainly incomplete. No idea how much more there is, but that's not the whole thing. Hobit (talk) 02:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Keep per VickKiang and Hobit. BOZ (talk) 03:02, 4 August 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.