Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Navy Field

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 merge and redirect Ships of Navy Field and Weapons of Navy Field into Navy Field (already done by Wkcp (talk)), no consensus to delete Navy Field, although a cleanup and hack-back is suggested in this debate. Daniel 05:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Navy Field

Navy Field (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete - No assertion of notability, no reliable secondary sources for verification, no evidence of passing WP:WEB and it seems to be an indiscriminate dump of instruction manual information. Also bundling in two other articles, one a huge list of weapons from this game, the other a list of ships. DarkSaber2k 08:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The other articles being included are:

Ships of Navy Field (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Weapons of Navy Field (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. DarkSaber2k 08:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge all, trim, and cleanup. It seems to be a real game, as it is on GameFAQs, GameSpot, etc. However, we really only need one article, and not all the game guide content that violates WP:VG/GL. Andre (talk) 08:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - as it stands. GameSpot only has press releases, there's a token directory entry on gamezone, ditto for IGN. Was Game of the Week at Gameogre [1], but seems to be supported only by user reviews. I won't deny this is a professionally written and published game, but darned if I can find anything to satisfy WP:V and WP:N. Marašmusïne_Talk 14:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this game exists, but there's not enough independent sources to support a truly neutral and verifiable article.-- danntm ^T _C 15:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional Keep - We need to get some input from Korean editors about this. Google News actually gives quite a lot of links, but I can't read any of them.[2] I'd hate to see this go as an example of WP:BIAS. - hahnchen 18:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup the main article, trim and merge the "ships of" and "weapons of" article, seems like in-game fancruft. I read Korean to a certain extent --- looks like the game itself has a decent level of coverage from Korean computing magazines or the games sections of major newspapers going a few years back, e.g. from the first page of Google results:
  1. Choe, Seung-jin. "네이비필드, ‘포스 Z미션’ 10일 업데이트 (Navy Field 'Force Z Mission' update on the 10th)", The Chosun Ilbo, 2006-08-10. Retrieved on 2007-07-09. 
  2. Yi, Taek-su. "네이비필드 8일부터 미국 서비스 (Navy Field service in USA starting from the 8th)", Digital Times, 2006-02-28. Retrieved on 2007-07-09. 
  3. Yi, Taek-su. "네이비필드 14일 유료화 (Navy Field starts charging fees from the 14th)", Digital Times, 2003-08-13. Retrieved on 2003-08-13. 
  4. Cho, In-hye. "엠파스, 네이비필드와 전략 제휴 (Empas, Navy Field in strategic partnership)", ETNews, 2003-07-18. Retrieved on 2007-07-09. 

Cheers, cab 05:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Since I can't read Korean, I have to say that those headlines seem to be just press release style (WP:WEB does state that Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in internet directories or online stores. which is what these appear to.) DarkSaber2k 08:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

After running the sources through a translator, it's obvious even through the mangled translation that all 4 of those are just trivial mentions of the 1st and 2nd types mentioned above. The first 3 sources are all just 'These changes will be made at these times' articles, and the 4th gives Navy Field about a 4 word mention in a 'This company which runs this game is going to be working with this other company' style. DarkSaber2k 11:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and repeat, it appears to me that Darksaber2k's interpretation of the Korean-language sources is correct, and the English-language ones are trivial mentions or self-published as well. If the game's successful enough in the future to garner more significant independent coverage, we can always write the article later, but there's nothing to write it from now. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merged Atricles, and trimmed what I could, added a couple of secondary sources. Would be a shame to delete this after all the original author's hard work to put it together. Wkcp 06:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: The article is de facto a fan-manual project, and I don't think that Wikipedia is an appropriate place to host that. If the article were pruned to a bare minimum of verifiable information then there would be almost nothing left, and I think that it's unrealistic to expect the authors to not just restore their fan project the instant that they think they can get away with it. Rogerborg 10:41, 12 July 2007 (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.