Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:09, 19 July 2016

Suzuka Naval Arsenal

Suzuka Naval Arsenal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · )

This is a non notable factory. There are very few sources for it. Sources aren't about it, only mention it. Stub article not necessary. --Moon King (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• Speedy keep as disruptive - I am the article creator, but this is a bad faith nomination. The only edits this user has made are to set up an auto-AfD script in the userspace, and nominate this article for deletion. MSJapan (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm a longtime reader. I saw this article and thought I needed to get involved so I figured out how to nominate a page easily and created an account. --Moon King (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Can we please have a discussion about the merits of this article? --Moon King (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Then explain your rationale as to why this particular article got your interest, despite the fact that you have been a "longtime user" and have presumably seen lots of other articles (apparently none of which ever had a problem), such that you really felt you had to nominate this for deletion (never having made a constructive edit here before). I'd also point out that you didn't need to dump AfD automation scripts into your .js and .css pages in order to AfD an article, and even then, it took you 20 minutes to execute the process. So no, I don't buy any aspect of your explanation in the least, especially because you haven't cited a single policy-based reason in your nomination to delete said article. Your behavior is simply not that of a new user. MSJapan (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know what I was doing. That's why I created the script and why it took so long to create this. I'm a longtime "reader" not a user. So I'm familiar with how Misplaced Pages works, but I'm not familiar with all the intricacies. I stumbled upon this article. It did not look notable. I glanced at the sources and they only discussed the subject indirectly and superficially. I decided I might as well sign up and help the encyclopedia. I figured the script would help with what I wanted to do so I set it up. Not sure what any of this is relevant to whether this article is notable or not. I say it doesn't because the coverage is not significant as I explained. Therfore the presumption is that it is not suitable for an article unless you can show how it is notable otherwise. --Moon King (talk) 06:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

If you're not familiar with how it works, don't fiddle with it. Why? Because the article passes notability for geographic features, and sources do exist in Japanese for sure. Here's 7000 GHits, and they're not all mirrors. There's plenty of material out there. This is squarely on your shoulders for not knowing what you were doing. MSJapan (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - Has sources that appear to be reliable, and I disagree that the sources merely mention the subject in an offhand manner. It appears that this article would be of interest to someone researching the pacific theater of WWII... although it's so short an article, and not likely to gain much more information, so I could see an argument for merging it with another page. Which page? I can't think of one, hence falling back on the !vote of "keep".

I'd also like to comment that I disagree with assuming that Moon King's nomination was in bad faith. The nomination makes valid arguable points (even if I disagree with those points), and everything is in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy. At worst, this COULD be a sockpuppet issue... but why? What would be the motive, the gain? I don't see anything like an edit war going on, or any evidence of wikistalking. I also find Moon King's rebuttle that he has been lurking for a while to be a plausible one. MSJapan, please remember to Assume Good Faith... this is one of Misplaced Pages's founding principles, after all. Lacking any actual evidence to the contrary, everything seems to be in order. Fieari (talk) 06:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I've been here for a decade - nobody decides that their first instance of "helping the encyclopedia" is to AfD something, especially when they admit they don't know what they're doing. As for the article, there's plenty of material that just needs to be worked in. It's got better coverage in Japan than it does elsewhere, but you are correct about its importance as per the Pacific theatre - that's why I created it in the first place. MSJapan (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

• Keep The sources in the article appear to be reliable, and also to provide substantive content. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The sources merely mention the factory. There are no sources about the factory. --Moon King (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product)
• AfD debates