Talk:Scanoe

Blatant promotion. Unsupported notability of subject. Article needs deletion.

The term isn't in common usage. It's just a brand name of one company's square-stern canoe. Would need reliable independent secondary sources to save this, but that's not likely because, you know, this is just a promotion of one company's square-stern canoe.

Dubious notability. Sole reference is the subject's "product page" -- primary, not independent.

Recommend article deletion.

142.105.159.178 (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisements from the time of the product introduction even called it a "plastic square-sterned canoe":
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_River_State_Recreational_Waterway#CITEREFPetersen1995, Direct link here.
So yeah, even the promoters are calling it what it is. Advertisements rave about how earth-shaking it is of course, but no independent sources are provided to suggest anything notable about it. 142.105.159.178 (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also it has no references. I took a quick look and it looks like Coleman stopped making it 20 years ago and now scanoe has become a somewhat generic term. Maye we should expand it? North8000 (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard the "term" used generically, and I'm a canoeist. So, I don't think it's likely to be one of those genericized terms such as "asprin", "roller-blade", "kleenex", and whatnot. I could be wrong though. We would need some actual solid refs (independent, secondary, etc.) talking about it as a genericized term. Somehow I think that would be difficult.

We need to be wary of a strange need in some to try pull out all stops to justify an existing article -- as if it would be some kind of shame to delete it. There are articles that never should have been made in the first place because the subject just doesn't satisfy the inclusion requirements. I expect this is one of those articles. That, and as it's currently written, it's clearly about (promoting) the actual Coleman product. 142.105.159.178 (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion and goal is that the info/ content has some value, even if just in some other article. And until I saw it and did a little research, I also never heard of the term despite being a canoeing aficionado including for more hundreds of days of canoeing over more decades that I don't want to admit my old age by getting more specific on. :-) North8000 (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't great, but I do not think it qualifies as being nothing but blatant promotion. If it is, it's not doing a very good job since they stopped making them before the article was even written. I managed to break the stabilizing crossbar in mine and finding a bolt-in replacement has proven basically impossible.(That's mine in the images in the article) I've kinda sorta been halfway intending to improve this for a while, but online reliable sources are indeed scarce, not surprising since Coleman sold the brand to Pelican somewhere around the same time Wikipedia was founded, and they only kept at it for a few years. I'm not at all sure if it has become a genericized term, I go boating to get away from people, maybe catch a fish, not to talk about my boat. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More important is 1) the lack of the notability required for inclusion as an article (my assertion and an opinion), 2) dubious notability (a fact given my assertion), and 3) lack of any evidence of notability (a fact given that there zero independent secondary sources). I favor deletion over "trying to save it" with stretched justification. It's better for "the encyclopedia" as a whole to keep good inclusion discipline.

Okay, maybe "blatant" was a little overstatement. Articles worded and ref'd in this kind of way have a tone that hints someone was maybe trying to promote something. That's what I was reacting to when I said "blatant". Looking it over, probably not so much, but maybe a little. :-) 142.105.159.178 (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

more research

I did a quick search for secondary sources and there seems to be plenty of them out there. It looks like the word "scanoe" is also used (possibly misused) for Coleman's square stern with the single plastic hull with that weird tube-based inner framework. That might be how the term could be said to be slightly "genericized". So, as far as I can tell it, the term is technically only for Coleman's double hull square stern, but gets used also for their square-stern single-hull-weird-tubes design. Still to be verified (or not). 142.105.159.178 (talk) 04:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My idea

With the term having some usage, Wikipedia should be a place where someone can find out what "scanoe" is and learn the types of things that we discussing above. My idea is to see if we can build it it a bit here. The we could decide what to do with it, with possibly merging into another article or keeping as a separate article. North8000 (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's an interesting article here [1]. Not useful for establishing notability but informative. It mentions that these days if you walk into a store and ask for a Scanoe they might not even know what you're talking about, suggesting it is not a genericized term. The terms "squareback canoe" and "scout canoe" seem to be generally understood to refer to the Scanoe and other manufacturer's similar designs. What makes this class of boat different than regular canoes is the space inside, improved stability, and the ability to mount a small outboard. Those are fairly substantial differences from a standard canoe. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just try expanding the article a bit in line with step 1 of my idea. BTW "double hull" seems implausible and also unsourced and I plan to take it out. As an aside, a double hull is a very different thing than a multi-layered single hull. North8000 (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may have put that in there, but the article I mentioned says it as well. I see if google "double hull canoe" it mainly brings up material about outrigger boats, which is clearly not what was intended (although I have heard of conversions to make a scanoe an outrigger or even a sailboat) It has an inner hull and an outer hull, I've always assumed that's part of what makes it sit fairly high, the draft is really shallow on these things if you're not carrying too much gear. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO Double hull has a pretty widely accepted meaning and IMHO I don't that what you are referring to is it. Our technical meaning of "outrigger" is what we build when when we go out at night on a northwoods lake with a canoe with too much alcohol and don't trust ourselves to keep a regular canoe upright. :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]