Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special Force (online game) (2nd nomination)

:{{la|Special Force (online game)}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Special Force (online game)}})

Fails WP:N and WP:V: non-notable game with no references based on reliable, third-party published sources. There are sources in the article, but they don't suit our purposes. We've got (1) [http://pc.ign.com/articles/114/1146894p1.html a press release about the publisher], (2) [http://wc.sfworldcup.com/en/main.asp a tournament put on by the publisher], (3) [http://www.wcg.com/6th/fun/news/news_view.asp?keyno=C11030410001 a press release about a tournament merely mentioning the game], (4) [http://www.fpsreport.com/games/special-force2.html an article about the sequel, which appears to be in beta testing], (5) [http://www.onrpg.com/MMO/Soldier-Front/review/Soldier-Front-Review-Like-CS-With-Fun-Features an amateur review on a directory site], and (6) [http://mmohuts.com/review/soldier-front another amateur review on a directory site]. Note that OnRPG appears to be affiliated with MMO Hut, which is specifically considered unreliable on the WikiProject Video games guide to sources. As I mentioned in the previous AfD under the name Special Force Online, this article has a history of being deleted and recreated under different names to bypass deletion review, so I'd recommend salting this name as well. Wyatt Riot (talk) 05:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ({{find video game sources short|Special Force (online game) (2nd nomination)|linksearch=}}) Wyatt Riot (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator's assessment of the sources. Doesn't seem to have gained much if any notability since the last AFD deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable game in Korea means reliable sources are in Korean. Search for the Korean name on Google News, and you'll get loads of hits.[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&gl=uk&tbm=nws&q=%EC%8A%A4%ED%8E%98%EC%85%9C%ED%8F%AC%EC%8A%A4&oq=%EC%8A%A4%ED%8E%98%EC%85%9C%ED%8F%AC%EC%8A%A4] Most of the recent ones are about the sequel, but you can search through the archives and find plenty of stuff like [http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chosun.com%2Feconomy%2Fnews%2F200606%2F200606300095.html this] from The Chosun Ilbo which suggests that it is domestically popular.[http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zdnet.co.kr%2Fnews%2Fnews_view.asp%3Fartice_id%3D00000039172137%26type%3Ddet][http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hankyung.com%2Fnews%2Fapp%2Fnewsview.php%3Faid%3D2008062747651%26sid%3D0102%26nid%3D001%26ltype%3D1] - hahnchen 20:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Looking through those links, I'm still not finding anything. There are numerous press releases and a lot of financial information about the developer/publisher—including all three of your references—but no substantial information about the game itself published in reliable sources. The most we could do with this information is have an article with the text "Special Force appears to be a game popular in South Korea". Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Then do that. When a game is so important that its distribution rights are discussed in the financial press, it has to be fairly notable. When the source states that Special Force has generated 3.5billion ₩ (~US$3M) in 2008(?), it's notable. Maybe that's another sentence you can add on to your proposed stub, it's better than your suggestion of deleting and then salting this. - hahnchen 12:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. The game seems to be virtually unknown outside of South Korea, but there it is popular enough to warrant an article, IMHO. There's people playing this game for a living, that ought to count for something, right? :) Someone who speaks Korean would be of great help finding sources here. I'm absolutely positive that there are more than enough. --Conti|✉ 13:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm from Korea and I know the game personally and it should be notable. Although I can't go looking for the sources, I know there should be reliable sources out there to back this page with. Kagemasta (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• I see a lot of people in this discussion talking about how there must be reliable Korean sources on this game, yet none have been found. Being from Korea, you're probably better equipped than most of us to find sources that will help keep this article. When you have the time is it possible for you to find something that will help support the claims of many in here? -Most Serene Wikipedian (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. I just searched "스페셜포스" on Google and saw a TON of articles on that game. Apparently this game is played in pro-leagues and as we know Korea is known to be one of the countries that takes gaming seriously. This article should be kept but maybe more in detail on bottom of current results of professional gaming scene. Jwjkim (talk) 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment it would be very helpful if someone who speaks Korean does the above google search, evaluates the sources, and creates proper references from it. Right now we have the situation where we are asking for, say, two specific examples of independent reliable sources, and responses are 'when I google it I can find tons of them!'. Though I appreciate the preliminary work, it would be nice if someone could help the non-koreans out. I for one am not equipped to properly asses the google results into what is an independent reliable source, and what's not, so I can't do it myself. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:03, 8 February 2012 (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.