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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Musashigawa stable[edit]

Musashigawa stable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Sumo stable with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This stable has produced 1 yokozuna and 3 sekiwake. It is one of the most successful Sumo Stables ever, for it's relative short history. Musashimaru is the first foreign born Yokozuna to be a sumo stable master.

No - the stable it split from did. Notability is not inherited.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting point, I have written to the new incarnation of the Musashigawa stable to ask them the answer to this. Don't know if they will respond though.--Leveni (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason for this page being up for deletion has more to do with the ignorance of RHaworth than anything else. If articles about particular sports are to be deleted, they should be deleted by people who know something about the sport, not by RHaworth and others who have little or no interest in the sport.
• Finally, RHaworth and people like him need to be reprimanded. If not, then a new policy about deletion should be drawn up. Eg: If part of a topic, which gets about 1,000 hits per day, is to be deleted, it should only be deleted by people who have knowledge of that topic. If sumo was getting about 1 hit per month, fine delete it and other topics that are in reference to it. But Sumo is getting about half a million hits a year. Therefore the only people who should police it, should be people who know something about it, like User:Pawnkingthree

Leveni sep 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leveni (talk • contribs) 14:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • First, please mind WP:NPA. Secondly, Wikipedia does not work that way. We're "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", not "the walled garden you have to be an expert with credentials to edit". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the minefield of determining the validity of the credentials and the connection between user and same.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion is for the deletion policy. Not for making new articles. In my mind FourTildes original (2013) page should never have been deleted last month. Yet there was no one to come to his defense. Having 'experts' (in inverted commas) would be a way for double checking if an article should be deleted or not. --Leveni (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- Putting aside the personal squabble here, it is clear the stable passes WP:ORG, even if it is separated from the previous Musashigawa stable (which it seems, judging from the stable's own home page, the stable itself does not do: [1]). Given that it is the revival of a renowned old stable and is headed by a famous former yokozuna, there has been sufficient coverage in the major press in Japan, such as: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] or [8]. More could be found. Further, while this should probably be checked with WikiProject Sumo, one could presume, given the extreme difficulty involved in founding a professional sumo stable, that it is possible to argue all such stables are inherently notable. While I think this stable has enough independent reliable coverage to pass WP:GNG criteria, perhaps creating such a precedent is in order. Michitaro (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

there are lot's of Sumo Beya that are not note worthy. Many can be found [here]--Leveni (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said professional sumo. Your link is for amateur sumo yokozuna. In Japan, the only professional sumo stables are those approved by the Nihon Sumo Kyokai, which only allows them in extremely limited cases (toshiyorikabu, etc.). Many other sports WikiProjects presume or directly state that professional teams (e.g., WikiProject_Cycling) or teams that play in national cups (WikiProject_Football) are by definition notable. I was wondering whether WikiProject Sumo has a similar guideline. Of course, other non-professional teams/heya could be considered notable on a case by case basis using WP:ORG. Thus the Nichidai sumo club (jp:日本大学相撲部), for instance, which has produced the vast majority of amateur yokozona (and later professionals) from the college ranks, most likely is notable enough to have its own article. Michitaro (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My example was to give contrast between notable stables and non-notable stables. I wasn't contradicting you, I was just giving an example of something not note worthy. I could create a list of all non 大相撲 beya, including all the women sumo, amateur, semi-professional, university, high-school and junior-high school. But would such a list be of interest and would it be note worthy?

OK, but as I said, even some of the sumobu mentioned in your list of amateur, jitsugyodan and daigaku yokozuna could be notable per WP:ORG. Also, it is not impossible to argue that creating a list of certain amateur groups (for instance, daigaku or jitsugyodan sumobu) can also be meaningful in some cases and be justified under WP:LISTN. In that case, each entry in the list need not be independently notable itself. But this is a discussion WikiProject Sumo should probably undertake. For the time being, to reiterate, Musashigawa I think passes notability criteria both because it itself fits WP:ORG and because all professional sumo stables are likely inherently notable. Whether there are non-notable sumo organizations is not an immediately relevant issue. (By the way, please sign your comments. This AfD is getting hard to read.)Michitaro (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep
• 1 It is a branch of one of the most successful sumo stables in history, was begun by one of the most well-known still living yokozuna in history, who is only the second foreigner to become yokozuna, and only the second foreign born retired wrestler to start his own stable.
• 2 This is all because he wanted to continue the tradition of of the Musashigawa name when the new head changed the name of the stable.
• 3 It is also the only new stable established in the sumo world in 6 years, quite a rarity.
• 4 This stable also has a corresponding article in Japanese, as of course, it's notability in Japan is unquestioned, and the simple fact that this article is in English should not be to it's detriment, as even if it did have top division wrestlers it would still be just as unknown to the average English speaking Westerner, which would disqualify essentially every stable listed on the list of sumo beya from notability.

The western equivalent of this would be "new" professional sports team made up of largely rookie players that had no article. It was also the only stable in the list of sumo beya that did not have an article, but this was only because of someone not yet getting around to it until now. The unfortunate fact that it as yet has no top division wrestlers is only due to it's newness and it has many other reasons for notability.

For the sake of fairness, I should also state that a month or two back, I did start this article, which was summarily deleted by RHaworth when he came upon the speedy deletion tag, hence his continuing interest in this dispute. Our exchange about this can be seen here: User_talk:RHaworth/2013_Jul_22#Speedy_deletion_of_Musashigawa_stable. Note: You need to click "show" to read my entire defence as RHaworth must have found me too wordy. The article I originally started, and which RHaworth quickly deleted, leaving me no access to the text I wrote, is here: User:FourTildes/sandbox_6 (RHaworth did comply with my request and gave me access to the article's text after I requested it.) FourTildes (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also for the sake of fairness, It would be better if FourTildes was credited with being the creator of the page, as it was he who first created it, and that credit was then unfairly taken away from him.--Leveni (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where else to write this, but as the article still exists, and has yet to be speedily deleted (as it was within minutes the first time around with RHaworth) I am going to paste in the material I originally wrote from the sandbox link above (which is more detailed and referenced than Leveni's article info), leave the speedy deletion tag of course, and then move to article to the more appropriate title of Musashigawa stable (2013) - which will improve on it's notability I believe. FourTildes (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep decent coverage for meeting GNG. Cavarrone 06:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's extremely rare for a foreign born sumo wrestler to establish his own stable; Musashimaru is only the second in history to have done so after Takamiyama Daigoro. Multiple sources exist as per Michitaro. Incidentally there is consensus at WikiProject Sumo that sumo stables are notable, and every active stable has an article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Consensus at the relevant WikiProject is that Sumo stables are inherently notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:16, 22 August 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.