Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ōhama Domain
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ōhama Domain[edit]
- Ōhama Domain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has no specific verifying support other than a link to ja:大浜藩 which cites only 二木謙一監修・工藤寛正編「国別 藩と城下町の事典」東京堂出版、2004年9月20日発行(351ページ). A review of Nihon jinmei daijiten here is unhelpful. A quick search of Google books produces no information. The stub article does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Enkyo2 (talk) 13:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Enkyo2 (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are ref. in ja. See the middle of the page, [1], [2], and [3]. Oda Mari (talk) 08:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Has an entry in Japanese Wikipedia, 国史大辞典 and other Japanese-language sources as indicated above. There's no reason that Nihon Jinmei Daijiten would be expected to be helpful here; "Jinmei" means "name of a person"... This is a place. Bueller 007 (talk) 04:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 23:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as above. Bondegezou (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2013 (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.