Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bugei Ryūha Daijiten

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 Incubate. . As stated, it is difficult to determine notability from online sources. It may be better, therefore, to take the article out of articlespace for a while for offline sources to be uncovered. Black Kite (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bugei Ryūha Daijiten

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

The article lacks independent sources and my search didn't find any significant independent coverage. After several weeks at WT:WPMA no one has posted any support for the article so I thought I'd bring it to AfD. I have no knowledge of either this book or Japanese, so I'm hoping someone can show why this book is notable. Mdtemp (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The book is cited as a source for a large number of articles on Japanese koryu. Not sure how that fits into notability requirements.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is still the most comprehensive reference for traditional Japanese styles. Google books gives many examples of it being cited (https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=Bugei+Ry%C5%ABha+Daijiten&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=Bugei+Ry%C5%ABha+Daijiten&safe=off&client=ubuntu&hs=Ezq&channel=fs&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ei=40yOUfvJF4SyrAfA-YCAAw&ved=0CA8Q_AUoAg&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.46340616,d.bmk&fp=a433b057c66a0392&biw=1600&bih=859) and there are many more in Japanese. Here is it being discussed (in passing, but several times) as a well known reference (http://acmebugei.wordpress.com/2010/06/20/the-curse-of-being-a-generalist-a-review-of-%E2%80%9Cclassical-swordsmanship-of-japan-a-comprehensive-guide-to-kenjutsu-and-iaijutsu%E2%80%9D-by-serge-mol/). I thus think it fulfils the notability criteria given for academic books (WP:BK) in that it is widely cited by other academic publications and is considered influential in its speciality area. Francis Bond (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The external links appear to largely go to blogs and other non-reliable sources. The references cited in the article are 40 years old and exist, presumably, only in hard-copy form. I recognize that this alone doesn't suggest that the subject of history is not notable. However, I am unable to find an current references or any current mentions of the subject in a historical context. This suggest that the subject matter fails WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I own a lot of similar books that detail various forms of martial arts and none of those have a wiki page. Nor do they deserve one. This book does not qiualify as an academic book. I have studied various Japanese schools, and none of them reference this book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartialArtsLEO (talk • contribs) 05:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is an encyclopedia - I would not expect the entries to refer to it. It is a well known reference but I reserve comment on notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:32, 14 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, L Faraone 00:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, my comment was directed to claim that "has become the standard academic reference for anyone doing research into the field." MartialArtsLEO (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found this book listed in several bibliographies, but it was listed among dozens of others so I still am not seeing the coverage I'd like and I don't know if it really qualifies as an academic book, but it might.Mdtemp (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability. Bueller 007 (talk) 02:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate. My search on Google Books makes me suspect that this is in fact notable, but that it is only sourcable by offline references in Japanese. For example, I found this reference in snippet view which describes the volume, the order that the various schools are listed in, and the general organization of the entries. I suspect there are more, but I don't think you could really do this article justice without spending a day or so in a dusty Japanese library. So I am inclined to recommend incubation, as it there is a chance that notability can be proved here, but it needs to be done by someone who speaks good Japanese and also wants to salvage the article by putting in some library time. (I could make a claim to the first point here, but not the second.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)−[reply]
Delete - After due consideration, I don't believe this actually meets WP:BK. The authors are not notable in their own right, and the volume, while no doubt authoritative, is a text I don't believe qualifies on its own merit. It is too historically recent to be on par with a treatise such as Codex Wallerstein, and rather than being instructional, it is encyclopedic in nature. This is essentially a book of lists which hasn't influenced the development of martial arts in and of itself. I suppose I could purchase and read this, but this is essentially an anthology. I believe such effort would be futile. Jun Kayama 14:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even as an exception, because of the apparent importance in the field. DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 24 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.