Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ogata no Saburo Keroyoshi

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. v/r - T P 22:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ogata no Saburo Keroyoshi

)

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

Entirely non-notable figure. I've not been able to find any significant coverage (example) – and on top of that, the style is abysmal. ╟─Treasury Tag►duumvirate─╢ 11:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with massive cleanup and new title. There are plenty of sources for this; search "Ogata no Saburo Koreyoshi", which is what the chap's name actually was... Notable historical character as per criteria 2 of
WP:ANYBIO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yunshui (talk • contribs
)

~~Delete~~ Keep (see below), I proposed that the article be deleted ~~a few days ago~~ yesterday (rationale here), which was contested. Basically, in addition to lacking any sources, the article's style is unsuitable to the extent that it would require a complete rewrite to be fit for inclusion. If someone commits to improving the article, then I think it could be kept, but in its current state it simply shouldn't be included. wctaiwan (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The point of this encyclopedia being a wiki is that articles can be improved by editing, rather than deleted and rewritten. This can easily be reduced to a stub and rebuilt from there if the style is so bad.
Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

The article has been substantially rewritten, so I'm switching sides. And yes, any article can be fixed, but in the state it was in when nominated for deletion, it was completely unsuitable for Wikipedia. The way I see it, "articles can be improved" is not a good reason to keep policy-violating articles on Wikipedia. wctaiwan (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Searching for the name that Yunshui provided turns up a few Google Books hits about someone who seems pretty notable, but I can't access more than a couple sentences of the books.
talk) 19:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite and Keep. I added a Japanese interwiki.
talk) 22:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

I wikified the article a little bit. But I didn't understand much of it. :) . I hope it helps.
talk) 02:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm at a complete loss to understand how someone who has been written about more than 800 years after he lived can be characterised as "entirely non-notable", unless it is that the nominator took offence that I contested one of his
Phil Bridger (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Alleging bad faith is
all very well but I clearly stated my basis for having not found any significant coverage of this person. If you disagree with my assessment, that's fine, but please don't suggest that I failed to explain myself. ╟─Treasury Tag►constablewick─╢ 20:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Pots and kettles spring to mind when you invoke
Phil Bridger (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Not to mine they don't. ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 21:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've continued the work started by
Moscowconnection, hopefully this makes the article a bit more readable. Still in serious need of refs; I will have a dig around later today and see what I can turn up. Yunshui (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
- Looks good now. But there can be many factual mistakes in what the person who created the article wrote. For example, I thought it should read "his armies played the key role in securing
  talk) 13:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Found a cite for the snake-god thing, though not for the actual text quoted - I think this comes from a version of the Tale of the Heike, but tantalisingly, I can't find it in my copy ('s a big damn book, though...). Yunshui (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, it's in chapter 8 of the McCullough version. Text differs, and it's a bit long to quote without copyvio, though. I'll rewrite something and replace what's there. Yunshui (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC) PS. Good catch on the Yorimitsu/Yoritomo mix-up![reply]

I rephrased the snake god story a bit. Now there's only one thing I don't understand: the words "Shinto legend". Is this a collective term for Shinto legends in general? I'll change it to "the Shinto legends" then.

talk) 21:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep Article is now sourced, he appears to be a notable historical figure.
talk) 16:11, 11 July 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.