Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hachisuka 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.  An as  talk? 22:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hachisuka clan

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article seems to be a non-notable clan with possibly a notable member. It has been unreferenced since inception, and has been tagged as needing references for nine months, and in-text citations requested but not fulfilled as well. It does not appear that this fits Notability requirements, and lacks much context to even evaluate it. Kuuzo 09:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Hachisuka Koroku is definitely notable, and makes the clan notable. Fg2 10:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Clan notability is not established by only single members, but a bit of digging with Google gives a few reliable sources (well, a TV station and a city government website, but better than nothing) which discuss the clan itself. They were the ruling clan of Tokushima for a long time, so almost by default, they have many notable members. Tokushima University's library have a portion of their family archives online in digital form . cab 10:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions.   cab 10:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep All Daimyo families are notable. Hawkestone 13:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as above, and a quick search indicates no lack of sources. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The former ruling clans of Japan are notable in part because reliable independent sources are discussing them, often (at least in Japanese) ad nauseam. They're also notable having been rulers of millions of people. -- Charlene 18:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Hachisuka clan was a minor clan, not a "ruling" clan, nor did it rule "millions of people", but the article has been expanded and looks fine now anyway. --Kuuzo 08:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, as per Charlene reasons. Callelinea 20:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: I have just added several sources and seriously expanded the article. I believe it now to definitely pass notability requirements. Tadakuni 21:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Looks good now. If people added sources up front, this sort of messy confusion could be avoided. --Kuuzo 04:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.