Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenosuke Sato

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 No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 22:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kenosuke Sato

This article appears to be either a hoax or misinformation. The article is not referenced and a Google search does not support the claims made in the article. More outlandish claims have been previously removed as have other claims attributed to Sato on other articles. As a result, I am proposing deletion as the article is either a hoax or covers a non-notable person. --Nick Dowling 09:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searching on Google suggests that there was someone of this name who wrote about Japanese/American relations in the pre-war years, but I can find nothing to support any of the detailed biographical claims made in this article. Not mentioned on Japanese Wikipedia either. --DAJF 10:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a confusing case. The article itself is quite plausible, plausible enough I almost don't want to damn it as a hoax. A search through JSTOR doesn't turn up anything useful for 'Kennosuke Sato' or variants thereof; however, a search for 'Amanojaku', his supposed pen-name turns up a number of interesting things. There was indeed a correspondent for the Osaka Mainichi, and he is quoted often and at length in at least one article ("In the Eyes of the World", by E. G. in Pacific Affairs, Vol. 3, No. 1. (Jan., 1930), pp. 143-153. Mentions of Amanojaku start on pg 150), and the name pops up several times in mythological/folk-tale contexts ie "In a folk tale, it is told that once seven suns appeared at the same time, and the people were very uncomfortable in the heat. To remedy the situation, a giant, Amanojaku, shot down all but one of the suns with bow and arrow.[3] This tale has parallales among the Miaos, Taiwan aborigines, and in Chinese mythology." ("Origin and Growth of the Worship of Amaterasu", by Matsumae Takeshi in Asian Folklore Studies, Vol. 37, No. 1. (1978), pp. 1-11. Only mention on page 1.), and Amanojaku seems to figure in variant versions of the Orihime myth (see Tanabata) where he kills or otherwise incapacitates her ("Reality in Japanese Folktales", by Matthias Eder in Asian Folklore Studies, Vol. 28, No. 1. (1969), pp. 17-25, Amanojaku mentioned on pg 24 ; "Communications", Asian Folklore Studies, Vol. 49, No. 1. (1990), pp. 135-142, Amanojaku mentioned on pg 140). Further muddying things are the first batch of Google hits, which all seem to indicate that Sato was in fact part of the intelligence apparatus: "The Herald Newspaper in Melbourne had an article on 1 January 1946 titled "Invasion Plan for Australia" by Herald Correspondent Denis Warner, Osaka, Japan. The article claimed that a 51 year old, Mr. Ken Sato was to be appointed Civil Administrator for Australia after a successful Japanese Invasion of Australia in 1942."[1] and there are other interesting links[2][3][4]. And so on. So, as far as I can tell based on the research I've done, the '1930s' and 'Pacific War years' are probably correct (and if the assertions are correct, I think the role he played confers notability); the Amanojaku tidbit is probably correct as well, since it seems to be implied by some of the sources and how likely is it they both worked for the same newspaper covering the same subjects without being the same person? The English-speaking part is supported as well. Unfortunately, I see no basis for the assertions about his education and role as a Navy theoretician. Either that is made up, or sources are being used which are inaccessible to me. Thus, my final conclusion is Keep and partially subify. --Gwern (contribs) 15:51 7 November 2007 (GMT)
- Comment The links about Sato in WW2 are a mixed bunch. The 1st and 4th aren't reliable sources - Ozatwar is a mixture of unsourced fact and fantasy and www.ceaust.com is the website of the Citizen's Electoral Council, which is a fringe political party. The other two links don't say anything more than Kennosuke Sato was an intelligence agent. The Australian and Japanese official histories of WW2 are very clear on the point that Japan never intended to invade Australia, so if Sato did claim that he'd been appointed administrator he was lying. In short, once the fantasy material about Japan invading Australia is removed Sato is not notable. --Nick Dowling 09:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems to exist some notable figure called 佐藤剣之助.[5]. I don't think this is any kind of hoax. For example, this [6] says there is a book called "Japanese-English conversation" by Kenosuke Sato. So, the claims like he was fluent in English seems plausible. -- Taku 08:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 10:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article's factual accuracy may be disputed, and it has very little sources (which are also doubted to be reliable). However, there is evidence that such a person exists, and I see no reason why this article should be deleted. Seeing as the article is new (8 days old), there might be some improvements in the future. --Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article isn't new - it was created over a year ago, but has just been moved and this appears to have deleted the edit history (which I didn't think was meant to happen...). The earliest comment on the talk page is from February 2006. Also, existing is not enough to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. --Nick Dowling 07:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gwern and Taku. Phil Bridger 13:24, 10 November 2007 (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.