Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bansenshukai

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. –MuZemike 22:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bansenshukai

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

Unsourced since 2005, no evidence of notability or meeting WP:NBOOKS, no significant coverage of this book found at reliable sources -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable, see [1], [2] and [3], Sadads (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I don't see the significant coverage there:
1. A 1-sentence mention: About 1676 A Japanese man named Fujibayashi Yasuyoshi published ten hand-bound volumes, known collectively as Bansenshukai (Ten Thousand Rivers Collect in the Sea)
2. A 1-sentence mention: In [Yasuyoshi Fujibayashi's] 17th-century encyclopedia of ninjutsu, the Bansenshukai, Fujibayashi has noted that the ultimate purpose of the ninja's art lies not in the mere perfection of violent and destructive methods, but in the cultivation of personal harmony with the surroundings and an intuitive sensitivity that permits the living mortal human to know and go along with the scheme of totality that flows through the universe
3. Three very minor mentions, including Though Ishikawa Goemon's name is not listed in the Bansenshukai written record of Iga rya ninjutsu, ...
I came across those when I was looking for reliable sources - and I found others along similar lines that were very minor coverage, and not the significant coverage expected by the guidelines. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 09:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to have a few academic journal papers published in Japanese about it, including [4][5]. In the National Diet Library catalogue I can also see listings of several modern editions, including in 1975 (JPNO 71016243), 1981 (JPNO 90034483), and 1988 (JPNO 88033472); the 1975 one includes an 71 pages of new commentary/elucidation (別冊解説) by someone other than the original author, which to me seems to also qualify as significant secondary coverage. cab (call) 09:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of he sources cab has found. DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If someone is willing to add inline references to the article for the sources, I am willing to withdraw my nomination - although I should point out that the new versions would not qualify as reliable independent sources apart from the one with the commentary by the publisher -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:24, 6 October 2010 (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.