Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jinbo Ujiharu

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 of the debate was keep. No Guru 19:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jinbo Ujiharu

Does not meet WP:BIO "Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?". Non notable retainer. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I continue to think these samurai are notable. Yes, I would argue that their contribution to the military history of feudal Japan is enduring. We have no problems with the notability of people who play Samurai on TV - like, say Kazuya Nakai - but we question the notability of actual historical samurai? It seems backwards to me. --Hyperbole 04:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Tsk tsk, you're being elitist, Hyperbole. Nothing, nothing is of more significance than TV dramas, unless perhaps it's computer games. -- Hoary 08:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Hyperbole Jcuk 10:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As with the others, if it's notable enough for the Japanese Wikipedia (see ja:神保氏張), I fail to see why it's not notable for us. I suspect the Japanese are better equipped to judge who is and who is not notable in Japanese history than a random Wikipedian who does not even know the language. See also WP:CSB. — Haeleth Talk 14:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete or Merge. Samurai as a group are notable but not all individual samurai are notable. This individual's notability, however, has not been fully established in the article. The individual's notability should be estbalished and cited. If kept, the article should be merged with Sengoku Period --Strothra 20:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Very weak keep per my comment on the Kajiwara Masakage AfD, and Hyperbole. --Eivind^t@c 21:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - No assertion of notability. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk}
• Keep real people are notable. Begin by deleting fictitious people. Fg2 01:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Not all real people are notable. --Strothra 03:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Good point. But, real people are more encyclopedia than fictitious people. --User:ElectricEye (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment That's not neccesarily true. Ficticious people may be, and often are, just as notable, and perhaps more notable, than most individuals. It's about the importance to society, culture, and other important aspects of humanity that people and objects are judged on their nobility. For instance, Santa Claus is a ficticious person but he is still more notable than most people. --Strothra 17:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per Haeleth. MCB 04:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:BIAS comes into play when we talk about people from 500+ years ago and a foreign culture. KWH 05:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Also, a Comment - Swatjester, I see that the author, Darin Fidika asked you for an explanation on your talk page since you nom'd several articles for AfD right after that person created them. Rather than assume that these figures are NN just because you never heard of them, you might pay some respect to the author, since their contributions seem to indicate that they have an interest in this period and are adding a great amount of information to Wikipedia. In other words, talk to them about the notability instead of reflexively nominating for AfD, which might piss off a worthy contributor. KWH 05:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: "I think one of the core problems here is that the original nominator should have raised the issue on the talk page of the article!!! We have gotten to a cultural state where "Gee, I never heard of this" seems to be a good enough excuse to nominate something for deletion, RATHER THAN raising legitimate issues on the talk page first to see if anyone can help improve the article." - Jimbo Wales[1]. Talk:Jinbo Ujiharu. --User:ElectricEye (talk) 14:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: It does not seem that Swat submitted the AfD in any improper or hasty manner. He simply put an article up for deletion which failed to meet the standards of Wikipedia. He cites his reason in his deletion vote. There's really no reason why he has to give any further explanation. --Strothra 18:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't understand what "the latter" means within the article, so it's a bit odd. Also, I fully understand the disappointment that this person doesn't have the encyclocognointellectual significance of, say, anything here or here. And the article should be retitled, with macron. (Granted that WP uses the ghastly Hepburn romanization system, a lot of its articles need to be retitled.) After that, keep. -- Hoary 08:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC) PS This person certainly existed, but unless he can be shown to be notable in some way, merge the article somewhere. -- Hoary 22:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If we know his name, if he's mentioned in the history books, then he's notable enough for me. Maybe with a little research we might even discover if he fought in any major battles or was involved in other major events. LordAmeth 10:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above arguments. --User:ElectricEye (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - The "he's more notable than fictitious people" thing is nothing but a red herring. The fact is, this guy gets one hit on Google, and from a questionable site that doesn't cite its primary sources. For all we know, he could be totally fictitious himself. If he is real, he fails WP:BIO and every other notability guideline spectacularly. If you think other people discussed on Wikipedia are non-notable, nominate those articles for deletion rather than disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 14:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment He gets one hit because you used an unusual spelling of his name. His name is normally spelled 神保氏張 and this got 188 hits a few seconds ago. -- Hoary 22:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment He comes from Japan and he lived nearly half a millenia ago. You really expect him to get 40,000 unique Ghits? Jcuk 20:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - He gets one hit because he isn't notable. Simple. We don't cut people slack on notability guidlines because of their circumstances. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 21:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment On the number of hits, see above. -- Hoary 22:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Precisely why Google should not be used to establish notability but rather the article itself with full citations. --Strothra 01:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Google isn't being used to establish notability. The guidelines at WP:BIO are being used--see the nomination above. I am pointing out that he only gets one Google hit to further illustrate his lack of notability as well as draw attention to the giant steaming red herring in the middle of this AfD. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 14:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I take your point about lack of an effort to establish notability. However, please reread (read?) my point above about Google hits. You've spelled his name in an unusual way: spelled conventionally, it gets a lot more hits. -- Hoary 15:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I was replying to Strorthra there, not you. I didn't reply to your comment as I'm having trouble understanding you. I'm not "spelling his name in an unusual way." I am pasting it from the title of the article, which, unless I'm mistaken, is a standard Japanese-English transliteration using the Hepburn system. What you seem to be trying to say is that he gets more (but still very few) hits with his name spelled out in Japanese. I'm not disputing that--you won't find notable historical figures from Japan who get one unique hit for their transliterated names. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 17:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I'm humbled by my new awareness of how poorly I manage to express myself. Yes, I meant that he gets more hits when his name is written in Japanese script. As of a few seconds ago, 195 hits. A smallish number, to be sure, but then again he's not a character in a TV show, let alone a character in a computer game, so the blogging masses are unlikely to be interested. -- Hoary 07:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Once again, Google cannot be used here to illustrate, establish, etc nobility or lack thereof. You are talking about an individual who lived too long ago and in a different society. That does not mean that the individual is not notable to that society or culture. More than likely, notability on this individual will probably have to come from written textual references which is why my delete vote stands until that may be given. English Google is more likely to bring back nothing but contemporary pop-culture references or specific holdings at American/Brit museums and archives. --Strothra 13:39, 24 April 2006 (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.