Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kajiwara Masakage

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 19:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kajiwara Masakage

another non notable japanese retainer. 54 google hits. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Google Test isn't very effective for sixteenth century figures. He strikes me as a notable and verifiable historical figure. --Hyperbole 02:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- WP:BIO states for deceased people: "Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?"....in this case it appears not.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Swatjester. -- Kjkolb 08:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; notable enough for the Japanese Wikipedia ja:梶原政景, which has much stricter inclusion criteria than the English one these days. If we have individual articles for transient pop songs, I see no reason not to have them for verifiable historical figures. (Note that the article could beneficially be tweaked based on the Japanese one, though I'm not going to waste time doing that when the figure's notability is up in the air.) — Haeleth Talk 14:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:BIAS. Besides, he might appear in a manga some day. Smerdis of Tlön 14:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest of all possible keeps The man seems to not have been a "mover and shaker" in Japanese history, but instead was on the periphery of the action... It's a little like putting in an article about a minor Roman senator. Interesting, and perhaps encyclopedic, but who is really going to have a burning need to know about a retainer of the Ota clan, who seems to have had little impact on history? But as others have mentioned, if we can have the likes of Gaius Iulius Iullus whose only historical information is that he may have existed as a Roman Consul in 489 BC in Wikipedia, then why not have Kajiwara-dono? It does no real harm...Pat Payne 18:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Individual's notability is not established and cited in the article. He seems to have little more prominence than any other individual soldier of any army. --Strothra 20:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Wikipedia needs more historical and multicultural depth. This article should stay, and relevant WikiProjects should be notified to clean it up. --AlexWCovington (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep it's not like we've got gigabites of Japanese history clogging up the big giant harddrive. He's remebered 400 years after his death, I somehow doubt that Paris Hilton will. Throw in a source, and I'll change my "vote" to Strong keep. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 21:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the Japanese Wikipedia considers him a notable enough figure, he is notable enough for mine. Verifiable sources would be good but they can be added over time. The Google test should be used with care in relation to historical figures who existed well before the Internet. Capitalistroadster 00:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fg2 01:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Haeleth. MCB 04:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 10:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "The" history books? What history books? Individuals write history books and pick and choose individuals they consider to be notable. That subjective process does not make an individual notable. Individuals must be judged by specific standards regarding their notability. For certain works that list of criteria is different than in others. Wikipedia has its own standards and they must be judged by those standards in order to gain inclusion into Wikipedia.

Keep --User:Electric Eye (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Haeleth Startup account 23:26, 25 April 2006 (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.