Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese pens and stationery


 * 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 and userfy per request. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Japanese pens and stationery

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Written like an advertisement. Does not meet notability standards. This article has been this bad for a long, long time. It's been tagged as an advertisement for a long time. Delete Metal Head (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Delete - needs expanding and sourcing and rewriting, but is potentially a decent enough article in the making. as per comments below Poeloq (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.   —Quasirandom (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Typical Japanophilia.  Is there something inherently different between an American/British/Canadian/Mongolian pen and a Japanese pen?  Is there an exclusive composition of eraser that can only be produced in Japan, where in America said production of eraser would fall apart?  Would I feel Japan-y if I use these pens and stationery?  I had no idea!  Anyways, now that that's off my chest...fails WP:N by a country mile.  Wikipedia is not a primary source. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Did you read the article? Some Japanese pens *are* different. Poeloq (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The articles notes that many Japanese pens have narrows nibs for writing detailed characters. Naturally, this is not sourced, but you know...  Also, a number of the pens are not "Japanese" in any meaningful sense.  Many are not produced in Japan, or distributed exclusively in Japan.  The only defining feature which makes them Japanese is that they are, according to the author the "most popular" type of pens in Japan.  --Haemo (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I did read the article. Yes, they are different, but as Haemo suggests, I imagine they're not different strictly because they're Japanese.  It would be absolutely remarkable and peculiar if that was the reason.  As such, there's no particular need for this article. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per my comments above. --Haemo (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, personal opinion essay, per WP:SOAP (mild soap, but still). hateless 07:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Japanese stationery is evidently notable. And, yes, their rubbers (erasers) are different and newspapers like the International Herald Tribune find this worthy of note. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SOAP and/or WP:NOT Doc Strange (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, expand, and consider articles on the individual items. a distinctive part of their culture, influenced by a different tradition, & as important as similar items here. That we write about such things on the basis of our own culture only is ethnocentric. Given what academics are like, there are probably academic articles. DGG (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep and improve — The presentation needs to be vastly improved, using some of the sources suggested by Colonel Warden above. The section on "Erasers" is already valuable.  And individual paragraphs under the "Pens" section are notable enough to be in the following articles:
 * Pilot Pen Corporation
 * Tombow
 * Uni-ball
 * Other sections need expanding.
 * Closing admin: If this article needs to be deleted, please move it to my user space (or another appropriate place), so that I can move the relevant paragraphs to the above articles. Thank you.--Endroit (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2008 (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.