Talk:BoardGameGeek

Removed Content
Hey, I've been away for a while. So I guess a year ago, most of this article was deleted by a single editor with no discussion on the talk page. Admittedly, there were problems with original research and excessive detail, but I wonder if it was too drastic to reduce the article back to stub status. Surely some of the content on the game rankings, Game of the Year, the BGG community, and the virtual currency of GeekGold is interesting and worth preserving. I would like to hear other editors' thoughts on the matter. --Jcbutler (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I feel like we still need more evidence of notability of the site itself. I can find plenty of passing references to it in news articles, but I have not personally found much solid yet from plain google. However Google scholar turns up some papers that may be helpful:
 * https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=boardgamegeek&btnG=
 * http://www.sbgames.org/sbgames2017/papers/ArtesDesignFull/175272.pdf
 * https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/RR-02-2014-0045/full/html
 * https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/1953163.1953338
 * https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2019.01317.x
 * https://www.academia.edu/download/54874413/cascade_hybrid.pdf
 * https://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/spir/article/view/10194


 * But I believe after that we should move onto the Golden Geek awards. That site itself should be good for confirming what they are, but I guess we want things like this for notability:
 * https://www.polygon.com/2019/4/4/18295237/best-board-games-2018-golden-geek Slimy asparagus (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)