Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ironclaw (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. After two re-lists there is no-consensus emerging here. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ironclaw

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG. There are reviews but not by any well-known or highly-followed sources. Google search for Ironclaw Holmgren fails to reveal non-trivial discussion of the subject in multiple reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 14:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Conversely, a google search for Ironclaw RPG reveals non-trivial discussion of the subject in multiple reliable sources. --RiotGearEpsilon (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see a lot of results but not any reliable sources; if there are some they should be added to the article. ... discospinster _talk 17:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A quick look at the sources does show an improvement over the version of the article which was deleted a few months ago, although I would be happier if fewer of them from youtube – hopefully there are better reliable sources out there than what we have so far. BOZ (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem here is that the initial release of this (like several other RPGs) was around the turn of the century, in print magazines; for example, digging in alt.fan.furry I found a mention of Knights of the Dinner Table #47, which seems like it might be a reliable source (note that it's far more than a comic. And indeed, it looks like Ironclaw's Rinaldi expansion is listed as one of "Brian's Picks". I can't see what it says without ponying up $2.99 - although it is asserted here that it was "pretty positive" (assuming that is the same review). Perhaps another editor here happens to have that issue in their collection? Nowadays, it looks like much reviewing of games does take place on YouTube (e.g. the 7 Realms Ironclaw reviews) - in part because it helps to see the product being reviewed. But I am no expert on who would be a notable reviewer in this context. GreenReaper (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider a review in the KODT magazine to be an independent reliable source. RPGnet's page on that magazine issue does indeed say that there was such a review. BOZ (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked someone who believes they have a copy to see if they can find out what it says. Might not be instantly to hand since it's almost two decades old. Not sure about the protocol for copyright there if others here wish to review it, but judging by other issues of the magazine it won't be a huge part of the work. GreenReaper (talk) 05:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm confident we can establish notability per WP:RS and WP:GNG to a level commensurate with related topics. We'll dig for more. --RiotGearEpsilon (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unconvinced that there are enough reliable sources for this to be notable. The game has several reviews but most of them are from Youtubers rather than established sites. The article should have been recreated with a proper draft on account of the prior deletion._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While I am open to changing my vote if new sources arise, I didn't find any. It looks like we currently have 1 source worth mentioning, and I don't know how in depth The Fantasy Roleplaying Gamer's Bible is. Does anyone have a copy of the 2nd edition to see what it actually says on the subject? Rockphed (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to find more. Unfortunately even stuff from this decade is bitrotting, but I dug up a copy of the review of Ironclaw 2nd ed. by Iron Liz (Elizabeth Skochil), from the "Pen and Paper Corner" (IMDB), Series 1, Episode 6 "Ironclaw". You might want to skip to the actual review (03:54+) which details the setting, character building and game mechanics for fifteen minutes; prior to that is fluff addressing the fact that, yes, it's a furry RPG. Why is this notable coverage? Well, Iron Liz was an affiliate of Channel Awesome, which at the time was a significant online publisher; the original review post (but not self-commentary) was posted (and received comments) on ThatGuyWithTheGlasses.com, home of the Nostalgia Critic, as an embedded video ultimately hosted on blip.tv (and now down, hence why I linked to a backup on YouTube). The review goes into enough detail to back an overview of the game mechanics, as well as criticism of the combat system, though it neglects the magic system (the self-commentary suggests this is due to production time constraints); I also saw it mentioned years later as where people had heard about the game. GreenReaper (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since the comment above, additional sources have been found. Both first and second editions - separated by over a decade, not counting expansions and spinoff novels - have at least one instance of published third-party coverage; though I'd like to see the first edition's coverage to judge its significance. Some references to the second edition are self-serving inasmuch as they comes from publishers or retailers with a vested interest; but the Iron Liz review does not appear to be - while generally positive, it offers criticism of certain features. This instance of the article does not go into excessive systems detail (if anything, it could draw more on features covered in said review); what's there now is backed by references. The claim regarding relative notability compares it to closely-related RPGs covered here, at a particular time; the citation (but, bizarrely, not the assertion) was removed by another editor, but nonetheless it remains accurate. There is evidence of sustained presence at major U.S. furry conventions (first, second and fifth by attendance) to the present day, and while some citations regarding this have also been removed, I found another in Fred Patten's Furry Fandom Conventions, 1989-2015. GreenReaper (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in light of sources being added during AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based only on the sources in the article, I'm convinced that maybe one of them passes WP:GNG (the interview as described above.) Everything else appears to be either unreliable, not independent, or not WP:SIGCOV. I also have no problem in the future with undeletion/draftifying if others think sources can be found, but can't support a keep in its current state. SportingFlyer T·C 13:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The game was analyzed in the New York University Doctoral Thesis "Narrative and identity in fantasy role -playing games" by Ken Lacy; Advisor Gregory R. Guy, 2006. Not sure what wikipedia's thoughts are on doctoral theses in regards to WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen them used as sources before, but that might be better posed as a question to say WP:RSN or something like that. BOZ (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @BOZ: Thanks. I have asked at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Are Doctoral Theses considered reliable sources?. Request to closing admin to relist again in order to give the RSN conversation time to give input on whether this source counts toward WP:SIGCOV. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Unlike most theses, this one isn't free to view. It would be nice if someone with access to proquest to verify that the coverage in this source is significant. Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 21:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I have access to proquest from my university library and read the article. It's a significant topic in the thesis.4meter4 (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. WP:RSN confirmed that a doctoral thesis is a reliable source because it goes through rigorous academic peer review. The disertation given by Ken Lacy is significant coverage of Ironclaw. This in conjunction with the sources provided by GreenReaper are enough to satisfy wikipedia's notability guidelines.4meter4 (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, the RSN ("Are Doctoral Theses considered reliable sources".) didn't discuss whether Lacy's Dissertation was acceptable as a source to establish notability. As was pointed out in the discussion and noted in the guidelines for the acceptability of academic sources WP:SCHOLARSHIP, dissertations written as part of the requirements for a doctorate should be used with caution. Additionally, most doctoral theses are primary sources. Primary sources are not independent as required by WP:GNG. To establish whether or not a source has it been accepted and supported by the mainstream academic community we generally use the citations it has received in citation indexes. This thesis doesn't appear in high regard in the academic community as Google scholar show only 9 citations in a field where you would expect a citation count in the 100+ area. "Google scholar search". CiteSeerx show no results for author or paper. According to reliable sources guidelines, this paper could be consider reliable for the author's opinion and possibly the author's conclusions but not much else. CBS527^Talk 01:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This classification of a doctoral dissertation as "primary" and "not independent" in the context of Ironclaw doesn't make sense to me. What the guideline actually says is that "[Completed dissertations and theses] are often, in part, primary sources". The dissertation abstract makes clear that it examines the use of language within RPGs. The author did not write Ironclaw itself - he wrote about its use of language. This is likely to include both facts and opinion about Ironclaw; a portion that might be considered primary is the author's own ideas on language, set in relation to secondary source material, such as a summary of Ironclaw's use of language. To put it another way: Ironclaw is notable as it was selected for analysis by an independent academic (Ken Nozaki Lacy), with guidance from other academics (such as doctoral advisor and committee co-chair Dr. Mary Bucholtz, who was herself an invited speaker on identity in role-playing games in 2001-2), leading to facts and analysis of it being published by independent third-parties (New York University/ProQuest), which in turn was cited in other secondary or tertiary sources. I'm not sure what basis an arbitrary number of citations has been given, or indeed what field is being talked about (Role-playing games? Linguistics?), but it'd be great if someone with ProQuest access could actually use this source to obtain and cite a statement within Wikipedia's article on the topic, as evidence of its relevance for our purposes. GreenReaper (talk) 03:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.