Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ironsworn


 * 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. Seems to be a rather strong consensus to weakly keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Ironsworn

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Can't find reliable sources for this game. Sungodtemple (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC) Also, this is not a video game: could the nominator please fix the Delsort-notice?Newimpartial (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep or Neutral. It is borderline, but there are two full reviews from Polygon (website), see here, which is RS per WP:VG/RS, and Tabletop Gaming (probably RS IMO, though there isn't consensus yet on the BTG sources), and both are SIGCOV. Winning a well known award (ENNIE Awards) with a WP article is also convincing. Interview available from Dicebreaker, but it's non-SIGCOV. IMO there might be 2 or 3 refs counting towards WP:GNG, yes, it's borderline, but I'm going to go with weak keep or neutral. VickKiang (talk) 07:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - the award and the reviews clearly establish WP:N. I'm not sure what the nomination has qualms about, WP Notability is not in question here.


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Agreed that the content is kinda thin but the Ennie pushes it over the bar... bar-ely. Jclemens (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Agreed that the content is kinda thin but the Ennie pushes it over the bar... bar-ely. Jclemens (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep the Polygon source clearly covers this, giving the kind of review we'd want for an appropriate game article. I believe there are enough other sources to compliment this, but if this is borderline we can revisit a few months from now. Jontesta (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per sources found and the award. Weak as I'd like to see coverage that's independent from itself, and two reviews in Polygon are not as good as one review there and one at another, independent RS would be. But with the award, I guess, it's borderline ok. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you might have made a mistake, it's not two reviews from Polygon (website), it's one from Tabletop Gaming and another from Polygon, by different authors. Not sure if Tabletop Gaming is RS, but it's probably decent, as some of the editors have appeared in other RS (Eurogamer, Dicebreaker...). VickKiang (talk) 21:54, 15 September 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.