Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minamoto no Yoshiari


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Minamoto no Yoshiari

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm technically neutral on whether this should be deleted, but I have my doubts and so I'm putting it forward for the community to decide. Neither of the Japanese encyclopedias I usually use (MyPedia and Britannica Kokusai Dai-hyakkajiten) have articles on him, and looking him up on Kotobank brought up only two bare-bones biographies. A fair few Japanese university websites appear to mention him, but several only in relation to the obviously more famous colleague, the god of scholarship and poetry, which seems to imply he fails WP:NOTINHERITED. The present article contains material previously cited to the English version of a Japanese archery association's website, but said English version no longer exists, and the Japanese website doesn't mention him once. (Take from that what you will, though, when said website only mentions one member of the Minamoto clan.) He appears to have been involved with the compilation of one of the court histories, and the Michizane and (possible) yabusame connections are interesting but I'm not entirely convinced. His name appears 31 times in the Sandai Jitsuroku, so enough information appears to exist for us to build an article, but the same could probably be said for dozens of other Heian courtiers who don't have independent articles in the majority of print encyclopedias and don't get articles here either. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: It seems to me that for historical figures, and moreso for people from the Heian era, the notion of "notability" doesn't really apply: if they have made it thus far, they must be notable. If the content seems dubious, compare with the ja:WP article, and unless it is wildly different, keep it, if it is wildly different reduce to a stub. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep There was an archive of the English archery page, so I restored it. Googling [流鏑馬　源能有] gets lots of hits, so he does appear to be the canonical founder as passed down by tradition. Also the Japanese article has him as the de facto leader of the government for a period, which in this period should be notable. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NTEMP. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Imaginatorium and VMS Mosiac. I do not know Japanese or much of theri history, but their arguments convince me.  In dealing with remote periods of history, we cannot expect the sources to be as good as for modern times.  He sounds much more important that many of the sports stars of yersterday who get articlers without question.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The person is now historically notable. Noteswork (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2015 (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.