Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Navy Field (2nd nomination)

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 delete. No references provided clearly meet WP:RS, therefore notability has not been established — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 05:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Navy Field

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

Article fails Wikipedia:Notability, there are no reliable sources establishing notability. Sloane (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and Keep - I recommend cleaning this article up. There's references out there, mostly in foreign languages. Just because SDEnternet does a horrible job of publicizing this game doesn't mean this article should be deleted. Fightin' Phillie 16:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fightin' Phillie (talk • contribs)
- Comment Can you post some of those sources here?--Sloane (talk) 16:32, 22 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) 17:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could not find any reviews listed at gamespot, IGN, metacritic, or anywhere else. We should avoid systemic bias so if Phillie can link to any foreign-language coverage I will re-evaluate. Marasmusine (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete – Did the same search Marasmusine did, and I also could not come up with anything. If these "foreign language sources" can be shown, then I might reconsider after looking at them. –MuZemike 22:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My impression was that this game was pretty notable, though so far I've only really found one impartial review [[1]], I will keep looking Monty ₈₄₅ 17:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also some more reasonable reviews: ~~[2],~~ [3], and a pretty stubby review, but still a review: [4]. I think this game is pretty well known in some gaming circles, and has enough critical press coverage to survive the notability standard. The critical reviews are hard to find in the flood of user reviews and patch update news. Monty ₈₄₅ 17:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of those reviews count as reliabloe sources. 1 is a review at a fansite for submarine games, 2 is a user-submited review at gamefaqs, and the other two are reviews at MMO portals.--Sloane (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'd be more inclined to say that the first one may pass for reliability after looking at [5]. However, the GameFAQs one is user-submitted and not reliable at all, while I can't find anything to see how MMOHut could be considered reliable. Since there is at least one there, I'll change to a weak delete. –MuZemike 15:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Striking the 2nd, but I think the fist MMO portal review in particular should count (link #3), it is clearly more then a proforma rehash of a press release, instead providing a pretty reasonable amount of coverage. #4 isn't as strong in that regard, so I can understand if you reject it. And on the sub fan site one, that I think is a pretty strong one, they seem to be taking a serious approach to the subject and providing a critical review; while its not coverage from main stream media, I think they are serious enough about the subject area that they should be treated as a credible source for the subject area. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I appreciate the time you've spent searching for sources. But... :) MMOHut comes up frequently, but it's really not accepted at the moment as a reliable source: self-published, enough poorly-written reviews to make me think there's inadequate editorial control, and a lack of information about how the site works editorially. I think the Subsim site is probably the strongest of your links. It is still an WP:SPS so a little further investigation is needed to see if Neal Stevens can be considered an "established expert in his field". Marasmusine (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Few to no reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple reviews, some with very substantial coverage. That some of them are relatively weak sources is not fatal, the way it would be if there were only one weak review. DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Let's look at the three sources again. [6] is a review from a site pretty much run by two brothers [7], so it fails WP:V ("Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.") [8] offers a TWO sentence review, and is a site run by probably one person, again failing WP:V. [9] seems to be the only site that perhaps has some editorial oversight. But it's still a weak source. This article clearly doesn't meet WP:NOTE, --Sloane (talk) 01:49, 31 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.