Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzuka Naval Arsenal


 * 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. This will inevitably be a keep  DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Suzuka Naval Arsenal

 * – ( View AfD 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 Wikipedia 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)
 * Let's quote what you linked: "Many artificial geographical features may be mentioned in plenty of reliable sources, but they may not necessarily be notable. The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability."
 * You have not provided one source, of any language, that does not merely mention the factory. --Moon King (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Here, now go away. MSJapan (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Assuming that is a reliable source which isn't entirely clear, aren't multiple sources required to establish notability? --Moon King (talk) 06:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait. Isn't that merely an entry in a directory? --Moon King (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. It an entire historical overview of the Naval Arsenal from establishment to current usage.  Since I don't have time at the moment to run out a whole translation, here's the Google version.  We also have three other sources already in the article, and the other 7000 GHits, of which I'm sure saying that 10 are good would not be unreasonable.  I will reiterate, as before, do not do things when you do not understand things. MSJapan (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me reiterate. The onus is on you to provide multiple reliable sources. You have not done so. You provided a single source that looks questionable and is probably a directory. --Moon King (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Why is it a directory? You obviously haven't read it, nor have you read anything else.  I don't know what your particular axe is to grind, but you really need to go somewhere else, because you're clearly WP:NOTHERE. MSJapan (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Why are you evading? The burden is on you to provide multiple reliable sources about the subject that are not merely mentions or directories. You haven't explained what the single source you provided actually is. To me it looks like a directory. --Moon King (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I already said that it is a history of the Arsenal, and I have provided a translation showing as such. I have also provided 7000 Google hits.  Reliable sources exist, and that is all that is necessary to keep an article. Proof has been provided, and what you "think" it is means nothing when I'm telling you what it is.  I wish you'd just come out and admit whatever your personal issue is, because that is clearly what it is at this point. MSJapan (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This AFD is about this article, not me or you. You claim reliable sources exist and point to all the g-hits but all you provided is what seems to me to be an entry in a directory.--Moon King (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I very much do think this is about you and me, whoever you are, because you are steadfast;y refusing to see what is put right in front of you for no reason other thna WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which means you have a personal reason to choose this article to make your "Wikipedia debut" instead of editing like 99.999999% of all other legitimate editors. You want to make a good case as to why this is a good-faith endeavor on your part, you can do so at WP:ANI, because I'm not going to bother going back and forth with you here any more.  Sources have been provided, and that is all that is necessary, whether you agree with it or not. MSJapan (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You have provided one source about the factory. It may be reliable, but you haven't explained what it is. You must provide multiple reliable sources to show this is notable. One will not suffice. --Moon King (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have explained what it is several times, and provided a translation - I am required to do neither. I do not need to provide "several sources" as several sources are already in the article.  I have provided reasonable proof of the existence of sources, and that's all that is required.  But here's some anyway: info from Mie Prefecture, a detailed breakdown of the area, a refereence vis a vis Japan confronting its history, an article on a peace group visiting the various arsenals, and so on and so forth.  What you can or cannot read, or do or do not think is irrelevant.  Sources exist. MSJapan (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Those mention the factory, but they are not about the factory. None of the sources in the article are about the factory either. The only one that comes close is the first Japanese language source you provided. It may be reliable. It may be a directory as well. We don't know for sure. Assuming it is reliable and non directory, that is still just one source. Multiple reliable sources about the factory, not merely mentioning it, are required. --Moon King (talk) 02:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing is going to satisfy you, so take whatever your problem is and go away. The article's not getting deleted.  You are not competent, and if you don't like that, too bad.  This is why I don't assume good faith with trolls.  Discussion over. MSJapan (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be satisfied if you provided multiple reliable sources about the subject. You have not. Rather you've tried to deflect. --Moon King (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have, and you are simply choosing not to accept them, which is not the same thing as there not being any. I think the problem is that you can't read a single one of the sources, and while you know you don't have a leg to stand on, you think that harping on the matter repeatedly will somehow convince others you are correct.  What's "reliable"? Stuff you think is reliable, not knowing anything about the topic?   What's "multiple"?  One more than whatever you're given?  I will say it again, you are trying to prove a point, you are somebody's sockpuppet, you are disruptive, you have no idea what you're talking about, and you are wasting everyone's time. Whatever you hope to accomplish will not be accomplished. MSJapan (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You can keep repeating that but it won't make any of it true. --Moon King (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What is reliable? WP:RS provides the answer to that question.
 * What is multiple? More than one.
 * I will repeat: you provided several sources that mention the factory, you provided one about the factory. The one about the factory is possibly a reliable source and possibly a directory. You haven't really explained what the source is. Who wrote it? Where is it from? What is the reputation of the source? --Moon King (talk) 04:19, 21 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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)


 * Keep The additional source brought forward during this debate by MSJapan is significant coverage of this factory/arsenal. Such massive facilities are an important part of the history of World War II. The bickering between these two editors is unseemly and should stop now. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * One source is not enough. There must be multiple sources with significant coverage, not mere mentions as are all the others provided. --Moon King (talk) 05:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , I know that you are a new editor here, but I am wondering if you have complied with WP:BEFORE, before making this nomination? Have you made a good faith search for sources in both English and Japanese? Do you read Japanese? I don't and therefore would never consider nominating a Japanese topic for deletion. An English Google Books search shows many mentions of this factory in many books. Have you verified that none of them devote significant coverage to this factory? Is there an article about this factory on the Japanese Wikipedia? If so, have you read and evaluated the sources in that article? Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. I did some research beforehand. The sources I found were mere mentions. Perhaps the three articles about minor Japanese Naval facilities such as this one, Hiro Naval Arsenal, and Hikari Naval Arsenal should be merged together. They are not members of the four principal naval shipyards and all have very similar histories. I propose List of minor Imperial Japanese Naval Yards.--Moon King (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The Suzuka factory has no Japanese Wikipedia counterpart. --Moon King (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure how you're finding so many English book mentions. It only turns up four on my search (in quotes), all of which are mere mentions. --Moon King (talk) 06:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep This seems like a historical landmark and I generally tend to favour keeping them. I'm not fluent in Japanese, but I searched with the Japanese name and was able to find sources which showed people organising trips to see the remnants of the arsenal. There does seem to be a certain amount of importance attached to this arsenal if it could find a mention in the very brief description of the city of Suzuka (see source here). I'm hesitant to delete it at the moment. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Clear misunderstandind of nomination's rules. Millbug  talk 03:05, 22 July 2016 (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.