Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kan-jam


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Kan-jam

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Since the game is patented, this article is really just an advertisement for a commercial product Wkharrisjr (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable sources demonstrate why this game is notable. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep a news search shows plenty of sources. I'm none-the-less a bit suspicious given I'm an ultimate and disc golf player and never heard of it.  But pretty clearly over the bar on WP:N. Hobit (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I take that back, I saw it played it once this summer, didn't realize it was the same thing. I think the one I saw was homemade, but... Hobit (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete—no sources to impart notability. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  without portfolio  ─╢ 12:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Other than the ones you find if you clink on the news search above?Hobit (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually meant that the article contains no adequate references (and since it is the responsibility of the article's creator, and of those arguing "keep", to ensure that this problem is rectified, I cannot help wondering why you haven't added any of the citations you claim to have located). Anyway, I do not consider such sources as a tangential feature in a student newsletter and a short article in a small local rag to be the "significant coverage" which the notability requirements of this project mandate. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  senator  ─╢ 12:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll simply point out that WP:DEL tells us that the debate is about the topic, not the current state of the article and also it's no wonder people don't source articles since it takes a lot of work and then someone comes along and tries to delete it anyways even if it meets WP:N by calling the references "local rags" or some such (notability is reliable sources, local or otherwise...) . If you want to ignore both WP:DEL and WP:N and argue someone else should be fixing things to a standard that would still cause you to want to delete it, I think the problem isn't mine or the original author's.  It meets WP:N and no one has provided a reason why we should ignore WP:N in this case. Hobit (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and WP:BURDEN doesn't say what you indicate it says. Is this material likely to be challenged?  If there is something you find factually questionable, tag it.  But I'd ask you do your own research and see if in fact it _is_ documented before you do so. Hobit (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hobit, at 00:45, 17 July 2010, you claimed to have found "plenty of sources." Almost three days have passed since that point. Please could you explain why you have not done anything to improve the article during those three days? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  assemblyman  ─╢ 13:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be for the reasons stated above. Is there some part of it that wasn't clear? Hobit (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't actually see any explanation above, so perhaps you could repeat it more clearly, but I have made an educated guess. Essentially, you (a) admit that the article is not up to scratch; (b) insist that it nevertheless be kept; (c) claim to have the means to improve it; and (d) refuse to improve it. One further question—have you ever heard of integrity? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  First Secretary of State  ─╢ 13:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. I'm withdrawing from this discussion.  In the future, please stay off my talk page unless it is to apologize. Hobit (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So you're confirming my hypothesis. Thanks for the clarification. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  estoppel  ─╢ 13:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * KEEP If you check http://www.kanjam.com, the game is notable and has a very strong presence in Buffalo, NY (where it originated) and is quickly spreading to other places in the northeast). The website explains its origin, details on how to play, and provides links to leagues and other supporter groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.1.97 (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)  — 70.181.1.97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The cited link is a commercial link for the product.Wkharrisjr (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * comment sources include, , , , , brief mention in NYT, . There are also many in-passing references to Kan Jam tournaments and business operations. Hobit (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So why haven't you added any to the article? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Regent  ─╢ 13:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently you missed it, but my reasons are A) I am no more obligated than you to add them (your reading of BURDEN is at best odd, WP:BEFORE certainly applies though...) B) It seems adding them isn't enough in your opinion anyways, so I don't see the point and C) When people insult and try to boss me around I don't tend to do what they want. I thought I was clear about the first two above, the third was implied, but I thought I'd be more plain at this point. Hobit (talk) 13:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am no more obligated than you to add them – on the contrary, it is you, not me, who insists the article be kept, and it is surely your duty to do what you can to work towards that. When people insult and try to boss me around I don't tend to do what they want – if this is to be taken at face value, it means that you are holding back from adding the sources simply in order to spite me, which (aside from not working!) seems rather POINTy to me... ╟─ Treasury  Tag ►  most serene  ─╢ 13:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Hobit's sources. I've added a few, and while the NYT mention is very brief, the coverage in a book and various publications seems enough to put it over the line. In addition it is being mentioned frequently in regard to college activities and in college papers: while those don't confer notability as such, they make me feel that there is some value in an article here, beyond the confines of the GNG - although with coverage in multiple RS's other than the college papers, it seems to meet the GNG anyway. - Bilby (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Hobit's digging has provided enough coverage to just pass the general notability guideline. Regards,    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 11:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ths sources found by Hobit look like enough significant coverage to justify retaining this under WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2010 (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.