Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomono clan

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. Ged UK 12:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tomono clan[edit]

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

See list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Historical people. The sole cited source is not reliable. A quick search of Google books shows no support. --Ansei (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- In contrast, please compare the growing number of article marked "done+cites added" at WP:WikiProject Japan/Historical people. --Ansei (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This may require more research. There is an entry on the Tomono clan in the Sekai hyakka daijiten published by Nichigai Associates, a major reference book publisher, a summary of which is available here. Instead of relying on internet sources to judge notability, a check of published reference sources may be in order. Michitaro (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions: Does this have something to do with Wikipedia:Inherent notability? Is it reasonable to decide that all historical Japanese clans are good article subjects when we can point to one published source, any reliable source support? --Ansei (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I personally am not making an argument about inherent notability. I am merely saying that I did find a reference in a well-known and respected encyclopedia, which itself had to pick subjects on the basis of notability. That implies that the editors had other sources they used both as a guide to notability and a source of information. The problem with medieval topics is that good historical sources are not always to be found on the net. We might have to find those sources in paper printed publications, most likely Japanese one. Michitaro (talk) 04:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I have added as much information and as many sources as I could find for the article on the internet; I also agree with Michitaro's suggestion regarding checking published sources. ~~I'll leave it to others to decide whether to remove the page or not.~~ On second thoughts, given the lack of consensus on whether to delete the page (it's also been relisted), I may have to put in my own opinion at some point. Cliff12345 (talk) 18:36, 7 May 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, Theopolisme (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Is it helpful to move the discussion towards issues of WP:Inherent Notability? I wonder if there might be consensus support for this sentence:

All historical Japanese clans are good articles when there is any reliable source support?

If yes, I will have no difficulty accepting what the group decides. The issue is made black-and-white. If no, I don't think I understand the implied argument well enough.

In our discussion about this specific article, I wonder about a related issue. In the same way that we do not accept ja:Wikipedia as a reliable source, I think we cannot credit Samurai-Archives.com as valid without something more. Is this not the current consensus opinion? --Ansei (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an answer to the question posted here and above.

I was under the impression that (unlike ja:Wikipedia or the samurai archives wiki) the samurai archives is a website written by someone knowledgeable in the field, and so could count as a reliable source. Am I mistaken and is [1] actually just another unreliable wiki? Cliff12345 (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wasn't aware of WP:Inherent Notability until just now, it seems like an interesting idea, and seems like it might be applicable here, given that many other large groups of people, such as villages, have inherent notability. Cliff12345 (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Michitaro opines, the Sekai Hyakka Daijiten is a respected and reliable source, and can be used to establish notability. I would also support the idea that historically-established Japanese clans are just as inherently notable as Native American tribes (which are basically just clans by another name). While Samurai Archives makes itself out to be a reliable source, I wouldn't use it as a source to establish notability. Instead, it could be used as a good starting point if there are sources indicated in the articles there. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If (as Nihonjoe says) there are articles on old tribes in other countries, it makes sense that there should be articles for the "tribes" in Japan too. Cliff12345 (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would not support the claim that any historical Japanese clan is notable. They can greatly vary in terms of size, geographical scope, longevity, and influence. Some only existed for a century or two in a couple of villages. The comparison with Native American tribes is problematic because these are not ethnic or linguistic entities, which is often the case with tribes, but familial ones. Not every family gets a Wikipedia article. I think they should be taken case by case. Michitaro (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would not support that either, and that's not what I was saying. What I'm saying is that any historically established clan should be considered notable, but we would definitely need reliable sources showing that it was historically established. We always have to have at least a couple reliable sources showing any topic actually exists before we can have an article which will stay here without fear of being deleted. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to clarify what I was saying above, I meant that we would still need sources for any clan added to Wikipedia (we wouldn't even be able to prove to Wikipedia that the clan ever existed without some sort of source), once there are sources, I would consider the clan notable enough for Wikipedia. Cliff12345 (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I went to the library and found another reference, this from Heibonsha's Nihonshi daijiten. I have added it to the article. I believe this is sufficient to prove notability. Michitaro (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm going to go with keep for this article now, it seems like several reliable sources for this article have been found since it was nominated for deletion. Cliff12345 (talk) 22:27, 15 May 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.