Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CanGames


 * 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. Consensus is that there is enough sufficient coverage to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 08:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

CanGames

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Restored from prod at user request. Taking to AfD for wider audience. Potentially non-notable gaming convention, as there are currently limited sources. Stephen 23:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The statement about being a unique bilingual game show is probably incorrect. I believe there's a Montreal show which is also bilingual. It doesn't make CanGames non-notable, but it removes part of the uniqueness unfortunately. (CanGames is about 50% larger than its Montreal counterpart, FWIW) MadScot (talk) 02:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - tending towards keep reviewing the list of past guest speakers there's some quite high profile names from 70s and 80s wargaming - I see Al Nofi and David Isby of SPI in one year. Frank Chadwick of GDW and Jim Dunnigan of SPI another year, Steve Newberg of SimCan (almost every year, quelle surprise there!), John Hill of Avalon Hill. That's a fair amount of high profile history. I'd be surprised if the con didn't get coverage in the hobby press as a result. I know it can't inherit their notability, but if a convention was attracting that much industry attention, chances are it was a bit more than a simple fan show and was at least notable in the early days. I don't believe you can lose notability - maybe it just needs a roll call of prominent early guests of honour, suitably referenced? MadScot (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Found an article in Dragon magazine in 1980 here (its actually on the con's website, should have found it earlier). Dragon was the main role playing game magazine in the 80s, I think that should count as a reliable source. And this suggests there was also coverage in 1979. I think that coverage, plus the high profile early guests, might be enough ... keep I think. And apologies to subjecting the rest of WP to my thought processes! MadScot (talk) 03:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per the diligent finding or what it seems to be at least one decent print source, which is (invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; if you don't like it, snowball delete the rest) better coverage than so many of these obscure video game companies I have come across. However, more sources need to be found to keep this from coming back to the chopping block. MuZemike (talk) 06:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Another source this time reporting the 2007 event. I'd guess from the style it's a local newspaper - the link calls it "Article from Orleans Now" and Orleans is a suburb of Ottawa. Looks like it has a population of about 100,000, so any local newspaper would be correspondingly small. By no stretch of the imagination is the Times, or even the Ottawa Citizen. It appaears to be part of a group called, I think, TheNowEMC, which seems to be a weekly, delivered-to-the-door newspaper. I've tried to see if there's a specific cutoff in terms of newspapers as sources and while obviously less reliable than a full daily 'quality' paper it's neither self-published nor amateur. I honestly don't know if it cuts it or not. Would a detailed review of a local band or film in a weekly newspaper be good enough for those purposes? MadScot (talk) 07:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable sources, just the website of the Cangames itself. Nonnotable.  --Banime (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as adequate notability demonstrated by User:MadScot. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Article itself both asserts and seems to demonstrate notability, though lack of third-party sources is troubling. Adding such sources to the article would make keeping more attractive. -FrankTobia (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK I took a stab at incorporating the references above and some of the personalities into the article to try to rescue it. The references don't flow very well, but they are there at least. MadScot (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice. -FrankTobia (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2008 (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.