- 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. Erring on the side of caution here, if someone wants me to draftify (?) this so it can go through AFC at least please let me know. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Battle of Mikagehama
- Battle of Mikagehama ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Excellent detective work from 220 of Borg found the original source, [1]. However, this is the only mention that either of us can find anywhere on the net. The article's content is copied entirely from that one source, and hence is not notable anyway, and quite likely a hoax (this is disputed) (noting that the source states many of the sections are "Modified from the Wikipedia article". Article is not notable, with no reliable sources. Thanks, 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 ( talk) 16:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Nothing about this battle even seems to appear in the article for
Ashikaga Takauji.
Wgolf (
talk) 17:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Wgolf: no, he seems a bit busy about 70km away in Kyoto (quote below from his article}: "
- 1351–1358 — Struggle for Kyoto.
- 1351 — Tadayoshi joins Southern Court, southern army takes Kyoto; truce, Takauji returns to Kyoto; Tadayoshi and Takauji reconciled; Kō no Moronao and Kō no Moroyasu are exiled". Thanks, 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 ( talk) 17:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think this is really a hoax. Maybe the article title needs to be changed. It is true there were several battles around 1351 between Ashikaga and
Southern Court (see
Kannō disturbance for the background.) The sourcing should be improved for sure. But the deletion? I don't think so. --
Taku (
talk) 17:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- There are 0 reliable sources for any battle at Mikagehama. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 ( talk) 17:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- You mean "English sources"? --
Taku (
talk) 17:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sources via English Google. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 ( talk) 17:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Good point! 220 of Borg 17:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Odd there is no page on the Japanese wiki.
Wgolf (
talk) 18:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Japanese Wikipedia does have at least two articles on battles taking place in 1351. My guess is the article title might be misleading (there is more standard name for the battle). Also, remember Japanese Wikipedia is hardly comprehensive. -- Taku ( talk) 18:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep If in doubt don't throw it out. I don't believe this article is a hoax. It isn't nearly conspicuous or flamboyant enough. It is also notable given the topic. I would support research into the matter, the addition of sources and the expansion of the article. Failing this it should be retained to give someone else an opportunity to improve it. Thank you
Trout71 (
talk) 19:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Trout71 Hoaxes aren't necessarily massively obvious. I would be interested to hear how this is notable, per WP:EVENT, this had no long lasting effect that I can ascertain, and it hasn't had coverage (at least in English, and I presume that if it was notable there would be, as there are no English sources, I suspect and (I may be wrong here) that TakuyaMurata has checked for Japanese sources). Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate store of information that may or may not be notable, keeping it after 11 years has found no sources gives a strong indication of a lack of notability. In addition, this uses material from the source which is against the terms, and as such should not be used anyway. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 ( talk) 19:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Odd there is no page on the Japanese wiki.
Wgolf (
talk) 18:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Strong Delete No coverage as far as I can tell in any reliable sources. If anyone actually finds significant coverage, by finding appropriate Japanese sources, the article can be recreated, but as it stands now there is no evidence I see to suggest the battle ever took place. And by the way, 'If in doubt don't throw it out' is about as far from Wikipedia policy as you can get. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 23:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: We may decide to delete for lack of sourcing, but it doesn't scream out "hoax" to me. Potential source? 1973 in German [3] "... des Kaisers Go-Murakami (Süd-Dynastie) über, schlug Taka-uji 1351 bei Mikagehama (Settsu) und unterlag erst 1352 bei dem hier erwähnten Kampf auf dem Satta-yama, wo er gefangengenommen und später mit Gift ermordet wurde." -- Milowent • has spoken 01:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Just judging from Japanese sources on the net, one would be hard pressed to argue this was a hoax:
[4],
[5],
[6],
[7],
[8], etc. Some of the above sources are blogs (I just took what came up first in Google), but some are government sites and publications (the first one is from the official magazine of the Kobe City government; the last one is from Kobe's Higashinada Ward Office). Looking at these sources, it seems that that the battle at Uchidehama (
ja:打出浜の戦い) was part of a series of battles that includes Mikagehama. Perhaps a trip to a good reference library would help confirm this.
Michitaro (
talk) 03:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for finding those. Perhaps merge to
Battle of Uchidehama? Thanks,
1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (
talk) 07:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- That's a different battle than the one referenced (took place 200 years later).--
Cckerberos (
talk) 10:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should have noticed that.
1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (
talk) 10:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- There are apparently two "Battles of Uchidehama", with the English wiki only introducing the one in 1582 and the Japanese wiki only introducing the one in 1351. Many of the sources I found treat the two battles as a pair (as in "...in the battles of Uchidehama and Mikagehama"), but more research would be needed to determine if they can be put together or deserve to remain separate--or even just ignored. I should note that having looked at many AfDs for medieval Japanese history, my sense is that sources on the net are often insufficient, since apart from government sites I cited above (usually related to the local government tourist bureau), most sites in English and Japanese are run by fans and are thus not RS. Since there is this systemic bias, paper sources need to be consulted. Michitaro ( talk) 17:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should have noticed that.
1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (
talk) 10:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- That's a different battle than the one referenced (took place 200 years later).--
Cckerberos (
talk) 10:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for finding those. Perhaps merge to
Battle of Uchidehama? Thanks,
1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (
talk) 07:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:V unless explicit confirmation in a reliable source can be found. I can't read the Japanese sources, but the "Encyclopedia of Japanese History" can't be considered a WP:RS, apparently a one-man compilation giving no sources and no indication of what fact-checking has been done. JohnCD ( talk) 10:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: it might be worth someone having it moved to their userspace until it has enough sourcing to be moved back to mainspace. If someone wants to do that, and it ends up being deleted, I'll be happy to restore it and move it for them. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete with no prejudice to recreate if we can find sources that demonstrate this is notable. We lack sources proving it is real. However, every clash between armed groups is not notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Surprised that the article existed for so many years. Noteswork ( talk) 05:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Userfy: I'd like to take
Nihonjoe up on his offer. Higashinada Ward is in eastern Kobe, where modern Mikage is located. For those wondering, Uchide is about 5 kilometres away in the neighbouring city of Ashiya. Even if general history books treat them as one and the same (or has confused the two over the centuries), I'm willing to bet that the local library in Mikage has some materials on what specifically happened in Mikage (and Otomezuka, which is also mentioned and is less than a mile from Mikage). But this is not something I'm going to be able to do in a hurry, so if the page could be shifted to my userspace I will work on it when I can.
AtHomeIn神戸 (
talk) 06:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ping me when the discussion is closed and I can do that (or the closing admin can do it...either way will work). ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment -- a one line stub with no citation is pretty useless. Assuming this is not a HOAX, the appropriate course is to convert it to a redirect, probably to the struggle of which it was part. Sorry, I do not know much Japanese history. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- The merger does make a lot of sense. The only problem is that we don't seem to have a target article, to which the article is merged, that covers the topic in a broader context. Clearly, what is needed is more work (on articles like this), citing sources and plainly more writing, and I don't think the deletion is a constructive step. -- Taku ( talk) 18:51, 25 April 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.
- 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. Erring on the side of caution here, if someone wants me to draftify (?) this so it can go through AFC at least please let me know. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Battle of Mikagehama
- Battle of Mikagehama ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Excellent detective work from 220 of Borg found the original source, [1]. However, this is the only mention that either of us can find anywhere on the net. The article's content is copied entirely from that one source, and hence is not notable anyway, and quite likely a hoax (this is disputed) (noting that the source states many of the sections are "Modified from the Wikipedia article". Article is not notable, with no reliable sources. Thanks, 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 ( talk) 16:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Nothing about this battle even seems to appear in the article for
Ashikaga Takauji.
Wgolf (
talk) 17:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Wgolf: no, he seems a bit busy about 70km away in Kyoto (quote below from his article}: "
- 1351–1358 — Struggle for Kyoto.
- 1351 — Tadayoshi joins Southern Court, southern army takes Kyoto; truce, Takauji returns to Kyoto; Tadayoshi and Takauji reconciled; Kō no Moronao and Kō no Moroyasu are exiled". Thanks, 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 ( talk) 17:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think this is really a hoax. Maybe the article title needs to be changed. It is true there were several battles around 1351 between Ashikaga and
Southern Court (see
Kannō disturbance for the background.) The sourcing should be improved for sure. But the deletion? I don't think so. --
Taku (
talk) 17:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- There are 0 reliable sources for any battle at Mikagehama. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 ( talk) 17:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- You mean "English sources"? --
Taku (
talk) 17:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sources via English Google. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 ( talk) 17:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Good point! 220 of Borg 17:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Odd there is no page on the Japanese wiki.
Wgolf (
talk) 18:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Japanese Wikipedia does have at least two articles on battles taking place in 1351. My guess is the article title might be misleading (there is more standard name for the battle). Also, remember Japanese Wikipedia is hardly comprehensive. -- Taku ( talk) 18:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep If in doubt don't throw it out. I don't believe this article is a hoax. It isn't nearly conspicuous or flamboyant enough. It is also notable given the topic. I would support research into the matter, the addition of sources and the expansion of the article. Failing this it should be retained to give someone else an opportunity to improve it. Thank you
Trout71 (
talk) 19:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Trout71 Hoaxes aren't necessarily massively obvious. I would be interested to hear how this is notable, per WP:EVENT, this had no long lasting effect that I can ascertain, and it hasn't had coverage (at least in English, and I presume that if it was notable there would be, as there are no English sources, I suspect and (I may be wrong here) that TakuyaMurata has checked for Japanese sources). Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate store of information that may or may not be notable, keeping it after 11 years has found no sources gives a strong indication of a lack of notability. In addition, this uses material from the source which is against the terms, and as such should not be used anyway. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 ( talk) 19:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Odd there is no page on the Japanese wiki.
Wgolf (
talk) 18:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Strong Delete No coverage as far as I can tell in any reliable sources. If anyone actually finds significant coverage, by finding appropriate Japanese sources, the article can be recreated, but as it stands now there is no evidence I see to suggest the battle ever took place. And by the way, 'If in doubt don't throw it out' is about as far from Wikipedia policy as you can get. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 23:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: We may decide to delete for lack of sourcing, but it doesn't scream out "hoax" to me. Potential source? 1973 in German [3] "... des Kaisers Go-Murakami (Süd-Dynastie) über, schlug Taka-uji 1351 bei Mikagehama (Settsu) und unterlag erst 1352 bei dem hier erwähnten Kampf auf dem Satta-yama, wo er gefangengenommen und später mit Gift ermordet wurde." -- Milowent • has spoken 01:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Just judging from Japanese sources on the net, one would be hard pressed to argue this was a hoax:
[4],
[5],
[6],
[7],
[8], etc. Some of the above sources are blogs (I just took what came up first in Google), but some are government sites and publications (the first one is from the official magazine of the Kobe City government; the last one is from Kobe's Higashinada Ward Office). Looking at these sources, it seems that that the battle at Uchidehama (
ja:打出浜の戦い) was part of a series of battles that includes Mikagehama. Perhaps a trip to a good reference library would help confirm this.
Michitaro (
talk) 03:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for finding those. Perhaps merge to
Battle of Uchidehama? Thanks,
1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (
talk) 07:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- That's a different battle than the one referenced (took place 200 years later).--
Cckerberos (
talk) 10:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should have noticed that.
1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (
talk) 10:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- There are apparently two "Battles of Uchidehama", with the English wiki only introducing the one in 1582 and the Japanese wiki only introducing the one in 1351. Many of the sources I found treat the two battles as a pair (as in "...in the battles of Uchidehama and Mikagehama"), but more research would be needed to determine if they can be put together or deserve to remain separate--or even just ignored. I should note that having looked at many AfDs for medieval Japanese history, my sense is that sources on the net are often insufficient, since apart from government sites I cited above (usually related to the local government tourist bureau), most sites in English and Japanese are run by fans and are thus not RS. Since there is this systemic bias, paper sources need to be consulted. Michitaro ( talk) 17:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should have noticed that.
1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (
talk) 10:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- That's a different battle than the one referenced (took place 200 years later).--
Cckerberos (
talk) 10:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for finding those. Perhaps merge to
Battle of Uchidehama? Thanks,
1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (
talk) 07:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:V unless explicit confirmation in a reliable source can be found. I can't read the Japanese sources, but the "Encyclopedia of Japanese History" can't be considered a WP:RS, apparently a one-man compilation giving no sources and no indication of what fact-checking has been done. JohnCD ( talk) 10:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: it might be worth someone having it moved to their userspace until it has enough sourcing to be moved back to mainspace. If someone wants to do that, and it ends up being deleted, I'll be happy to restore it and move it for them. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete with no prejudice to recreate if we can find sources that demonstrate this is notable. We lack sources proving it is real. However, every clash between armed groups is not notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Surprised that the article existed for so many years. Noteswork ( talk) 05:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Userfy: I'd like to take
Nihonjoe up on his offer. Higashinada Ward is in eastern Kobe, where modern Mikage is located. For those wondering, Uchide is about 5 kilometres away in the neighbouring city of Ashiya. Even if general history books treat them as one and the same (or has confused the two over the centuries), I'm willing to bet that the local library in Mikage has some materials on what specifically happened in Mikage (and Otomezuka, which is also mentioned and is less than a mile from Mikage). But this is not something I'm going to be able to do in a hurry, so if the page could be shifted to my userspace I will work on it when I can.
AtHomeIn神戸 (
talk) 06:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ping me when the discussion is closed and I can do that (or the closing admin can do it...either way will work). ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment -- a one line stub with no citation is pretty useless. Assuming this is not a HOAX, the appropriate course is to convert it to a redirect, probably to the struggle of which it was part. Sorry, I do not know much Japanese history. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- The merger does make a lot of sense. The only problem is that we don't seem to have a target article, to which the article is merged, that covers the topic in a broader context. Clearly, what is needed is more work (on articles like this), citing sources and plainly more writing, and I don't think the deletion is a constructive step. -- Taku ( talk) 18:51, 25 April 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.