Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Date Sanemoto

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 delete. --BDD (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Date Sanemoto[edit]

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

See list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Historical people. A quick search of Google books shows no support. The stub article does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Enkyo2 (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --Enkyo2 18:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. --Enkyo2 18:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. --Enkyo2 22:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As context, does it make sense to compare Amakasu Kagetsugu and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amakasu clan? --Enkyo2 12:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Date Sanemoto (伊達実元) wasn't fictional. His father's attempt to make him heir of the Uesugi by having Uesugi Sadazane adopt him led to the Tenbun War (天文の乱). He was also the father of Date Shigezane, who is notable. I don't know if that qualifies Sanemoto himself as notable, though. Cckerberos (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Historically irrelevant person. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:35, 13 June 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, SarahStierch (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Concur with Bueller 007. Jun Kayama 16:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability claims appear tenuous for this individual, however famous his relatives may have been. --DAJF (talk) 02:36, 21 June 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.