This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Games, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.GamesWikipedia:WikiProject GamesTemplate:WikiProject GamesGames articles
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
@Piotrus:@BOZ: I'm pinging editors who are quite active in the WikiProject BTG. I've improved this draft, adding a lot of refs, but mostly listicles. Ref 3 (Polygon) counts to GNG, ref 4 as well, it's generally to marginally reliable, and though it's a listicle, the coverage is longer than a lengthy paragraph. The T3 review might be long enough, and should count as close to one (or half) ref for GNG. All other refs (including one from NY Times) are RS but short, I suppose each count to a third of GNG (maybe?), so added together the rest refs might only count as one ref. Anyway, I think this meets GNG, 2 count towards SIGCOV and probably 3, the rest might not be longer than a lengthy paragraph, but it's also recommended by the SdJ. Sure, the coverage is short, and it isn't nominated or won the award, so should that count to notability? Anyway, I feel this could be moved to mainspace if 2O (including mine) agree with this assessment, but if it's controversial, I might submit this through AfC, then another reviewer outside our Wikiproject can assess its general notability. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 03:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VickKiang Borderline. I'd mainspace it as it deserves a proper AfD, not death-in-draftspace. And it may be notable, but sources may exist in non-English. This calls Klask a "typical Danish game". There is no da:Klask, but there is de:Klask and fr:Klask. French is very bad, but German does seem to cite some more sources. PS. Not much in Polish sources, just one blog, and one minor portal review (about gameby, reliability is borderline IMHO, it's a minor website with unclear editorial policies, they also admit elsewhere they'd published "promotional articles"; those are tagged and listed here but don't appear to be indicated as such in the article itself). Now that I wrote so much I'll toss this to WP:BGRS talk page... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here08:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Personally, I might go with weak keep, there's two refs SIGCOV (though Dicebreaker is just marginally significant). The T3 review might be long enough, but I admit it's difficult to meet GNG. The other ones are admittedly very short, and proably doesn't count towards GNG. The game is only recommended by the SdJ, is that notable? But moving the draft to main and then AfDing it isn't that great... should I submit this to Wikipedia:AfC? VickKiang (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
