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. Probably scrapes notability, nobody other than the nominator has argued for deletion. Discussions about upmerging to a new Game jam article can proceed on the talk page. Fences&Windows 22:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC) p.s. Day early close due to tiredness not malice, please feel free to revert. Fences&Windows 22:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indie Game Jam[edit]

Indie Game Jam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

No clear notability. Minimal independent sources, most google results are for other, unrelated game jams. Appears to primarily exist for linking to wikipedia pages for game developers of varying degrees of notability. The concept of a game jam is certainly notable, but this particular one is not. Any salvageable material could be merged to Global Game Jam as a history section. Kuguar03 (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gamasutra is the most impeccable source available for electronic game industry articles. There are no less than 14 articles at Gamasutra on this topic in the Google News search (button at the top of the article), and 12 other sources as well. The erroneous assertion that "most google results are for other, unrelated game jams", and the flurry of bar-raising and dancing around the fact that the citations available are from most reliable source possible, below, convinces me of exactly the opposite of what was intended. Anarchangel (talk) 10:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:DELPRO to understand how the deletion process works and how you should present your arguments, as well as WP:GOOGLETEST to understand why your statements are erroneous. If this topic is notable, please establish it by showing significant independent coverage by reliable sources. That's what we're trying to do here. Kuguar03 (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, when one, as you suggest, clicks on the Google News button above, most of the results are for other, unrelated game jams. That is a fact that any editor acting in good faith could easily verify. It may turn out that this topic is notable, but "some stuff turned up on google" is not the way to establish it. No bar raising, no dancing, just basic application of wikipedia's most fundamental guidelines. Kuguar03 (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Google search results give me several articles that mention the Indie Game Jam as an important event. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Giving same link as when contesting the PROD. It's notable; the article is poor and does not show it; but it's notable. If after expansion and inclusion of all sources, the article is too short, then it can be merged to Global Game Jam. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - And as I've pointed out, nearly all of those Google results are for other game jams. Given that, can you expand on your argument for notability? "It's notable; the article is poor and does not show it; but it's notable" is not very compelling. Kuguar03 (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What I mean is: notability of the subject is not dependent on the current quality or sourcing of the article. It is either notable or not. And in this case, I am arguing it is, because reliable secondary video gaming media coverage exists, even though no links are referenced inline. I'm not sure what the results produce for you, but the very first links are: [1], [2], [3], [4], etc.; and are all decent coverage of the topic. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another nominator assumes GNG is the requirement for deletion, when that is the requirement for content of articles. There is a distinctly different standard afforded articles when deletion of the entire article is considered: WP:DEL, which stands for DELETION. It's sort of a no-brainer, really, DELETION covers deletion. "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" is the cutoff point, of which H3llkn0wz's arguments demonstrate an understanding, and nom's do not. Anarchangel (talk) 10:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, other than the one that is about a completely different game jam, of course. Some minimal coverage in game-specific blogs doesn't seem to constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as per WP:GNG, so I'm interested in what it is that makes you think this subject is notable. And no one's said nothing about the quality of the article, so I'm confused as to why you say "notability of the subject is not dependent on the current quality or sourcing of the article". Is that really relevant to this discussion? If the topic is notable, than it can easily be fixed. That is not a consideration in the nomination, at all, as evidenced by the fact that it wasn't given as a consideration. The consideration is the notability of the subject, which needs to be addressed, and using specific reference to how it satisfies relevant wikipedia guidelines such as WP:GNG, not simple assertions. Kuguar03 (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The links are about year-specific Indie Game Jams. Not sure how you see this as different game jams. And the coverage is not minimal, in fact the articles are about the topic alone. Sources are not just blogs, but reliable secondary video gaming sources (WP:VG/RS). I mentioned "quality of article" because you asked to explain my quote. I mentioned it in the first place because the sources had not yet been incorporated in the article and you suggested there were none available, so I pointed out there are. You may not agree, but my rationale (while not explicitly stated) is of course WP:GNG "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", where sources are one of the best VG/RS. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You really ought to look at the links you posted. One is for a completely different game jam. Not a different year, but a completely separate unrelated game jam. In the google search you linked, half of the 1st 10 results are about completely separate game jams. On a normal google search, there are no independent references on the first 2 pages. A game jam is a general concept. Every reference to a game jam is not about this particular jam. Just because the phrase "game jam" appears somewhere does not mean they are talking about this particular jam. If they are about completely different game jams then you can't use them as references for this article. Kuguar03 (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Toronto one was my bad. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Filtering through the google results, this is the only reliable, independent, non-blog post on this topic: [5]. Do you really feel that constitutes significant coverage? Kuguar03 (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually, I take that back. It's written by Justin Hall, one of the participants, so it's not independent. No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Not notable. Kuguar03 (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my arguments and HELLKNOWZ', above. Anarchangel (talk) 10:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable gaming development event, multiple sources cover this as a quick glance at search results reveal. WP:N is easily met, although the article could use some work. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get some serious responses here? Per WP:DEL (mentioned above) "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline" should be deleted. Not a single respondent so far has made a good faith attempt to establish notability. Neither "I googled it and got some results which I didn't actually look at" nor "The article is poorly written but can be improved" are good arguments. Please see arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.

This really is so typical in game-related deletion discussions: editors are so willing to lay down in front of the bulldozer to defend an article but don't demonstrate even the most basic understanding of wikipedia guidelines. You're not helping the efforts to improve coverage of game-related topics on wikipedia; you're hurting those efforts when you try to hold certain articles to a different set of standards. Gaming is a highly important topic worthy of critical discussion and coverage, an important part of that process is separating the wheat from the chaff. This article is clearly chaff. Kuguar03 (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my opinion, arrived at from my examination of the article and the available sources, wikipedia guidelines, and my personal knowledge of the subject area. As opposed to the other opinions presented here, which are pretty classic examples of WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:GOOGLEHITS. Kuguar03 (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People have been listing several reliable sources. It's almost ironic that someone who referenced how he could not find any reliable sources in the first two pages of Google hits as an argument of his would criticize others for using Google. If you want serious replies, write seriously. And acknowledge the sheer existence of its coverage in Newsweek, two published books, Gamasutra (twice), and The Escapist. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the 2 Gamasutra articles (both written by participants, so not independent), but this is the first mention of coverage in Newsweek, two published books, or Escapist. Care to share this with the rest of us?

And I though my argument was very clear WRT the Google results: Other editors were arguing that the shear volume of google results was justification for keeping this article, I was merely pointing out that 1. this wasn't true, due to many of the results being for unrelated game jams, and 2. Generally Google results are not considered a good argument under wikipedia guidelines. If that's not clear and you're still confused, please consult the links I've shared. Kuguar03 (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[6] [7] - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per recent sources added and per deletion policy WP:BEFORE. --Teancum (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Since it seems that a cadre of editors are determined to resist Wikipedia's core guidelines and keep this article inspite of its clear lack of notability. It's pretty sad and obviously a terrible result for the project as a whole, but let's at least work together to make the article reasonable until such time that you're willing to acknowledge your mistake. As there there was more information in the article than was available from the few non-independent sources I trimmed it down a bit - we certainly don't need the list of random participants and there is no mention anywhere of this event continuing past 2005. A lot of the remaining text still needs trimming, once this article actually reflects the available material it will be incredibly apparent how misguided the efforts to keep this article are. Really, I don't understand what you were hoping to accomplish and maybe someday you'll explain it to me. Certainly every argument made here is nonsense, we all know that, so whatever the underlying motive is I'd like to know. Kuguar03 (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you possibly be any less civil than you are? If you can't act maturely in this discussion, then I suggest you leave this discussion. Also, I'm curious as to where it suggests that notability is temporary. I agree that there is some nonsense here, specifically from your end, and clearly, you have no interest in discussing this above childish insults. If you plan to bring another article to AfD, consider actually discussing it before blindly assuming that deletion is the necessary first step. So while you violate several policies in the post that you just made, we will improve this article with the several reliable sources that we have procured. And by the way, just because the two Gamasutra authors participated in an event does not make them unable to comment on it. There is no demonstration that they are discussing it with some ulterior motive in mind, and being for a reliable web site, there is an expectation that they compose themselves well enough to not lower themselves to that. tldr; don't cry that people don't agree with you. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, if we do decide that the final product is not suitable to be its own article, we will have a discussion in the appropriate venue on whether it should be merged or not. As opposed to bringing it to the Articles for deletion and proposing a merge. The AfD has never been and will never be about merges - your argument never even proposed deletion, so why is this even here? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but it's clear that I'm the only person here who has attempted to engage in serious discussion. If you can honestly look back at this page and feel that you or anyone else has been acting in good faith, then you should retire from wikipedia immediately. This last comment in particular was blatent in misrepresenting my efforts and the arguments I made.
    • I made a clear argument for deletion based on lack of notability, no one has made any serious attempt to counter that, so deletion is inevitable. This discussion is clearly a trainwreck and should be closed, but since the topic is not notable it will surely be nominated again, though not by me. Merges and redirects are often proposed as part of AfDs, so it's clear you either don't know what you're talking about or are acting in bad faith. As I've said before, a general game jam article would be great, and I would expect some of this material to be a section in that article.
    • As It stands, I've substantially reworked the article so that is it at least readable and resembles an actual wikipedia article. There are still no independent references, though I left what was there as external links/additional reading so there's no need to discuss them in the next discussion. Kuguar03 (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Non-independent sources are not suitable for notability determination, but there is no policy against including them in the article. The only "non-independent" source is the article by Justin Hall, but even that is published by an independent and one of the most reliable video gaming sources. You simply removed every inline citation, thus making every fact in the article unreferenced. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) The nominator removed every inline reference from the article and changed some of the material directly supported by citations. Seeing that this is the best place to comment on this: I reverted the edits. Even if some of the sources are "primary", because the author has been present at the IGJ does not break any policy on including them. All references (even interviews) have publishers that are independent. Gamasutra is a peer reviewed website of high standards and a COI reporter would most definitely not pursue any personal agendas, as New Age Retro Hippie has already stated. Furthermore, as I am the only recent contributor besides the nominator, the ((COI)) is less than warranted. My good faith on this nomination has now run out. Having carefully attached inline references to every statement and only used reliable sources, I cannot see how removal of every citation if warranted. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:07, 11 March 2011 (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.