Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of items associated with Weekly Shōnen Jump


 * 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 merge to Weekly Shōnen Jump. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07  ( T ) 01:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

List of items associated with Weekly Shōnen Jump

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOT a catalog or directory. Entirely unsourced, just a list of products and links to web stores. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment The article is indeed in very bad shape. Especially with sentences like "The most likely series of JUMP Comics (store-wise) would be Naruto". It is in dire need of referencing, removal of promotional content, and needs a new name. My only comment would be that these are surmountable problems. If we had to look at the notability of JUMP and the possibility of a sub-article for their products there is plenty of significant coverage. JUMP is one of the largest manga publications in Japan. A WP:BEFORE search reveals thousands of sources, particularly in Japanese, and many of them are about their products. I'm not certain if there's enough for a sub-article on each product. The main article is already a fair size which brings us right back to a single sub-article about their products if it can be written well. We can and do have articles about commercial products if covered in a comprehensive and encyclopedic way. Before we mention WP:OTHERSTUFF, the Star Wars franchise as being a prolific example, has a relevant and comparable series of sub articles about products related to the franchise that meet our notability standards. Based upon the sources available, this article could likely get there under a single sub article. Mkdw talk 15:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not deny the possibility that an article could be written on this topic. But this article is pretty much WP:JUNK and it would be better to WP:STARTOVER Gaijin42 (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, if that is your reason for nominating this article, such a reason is listed as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Specifically under the WP:SURMOUNTABLE subsections. Koala Tea Of Mercy ( KTOM's Articulations &amp; Invigilations ) 10:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Though Wikipedia could have an article on this subject, there is nothing that can be salvaged from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethanlu121 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete This list looks more like an advertisement, delete per WP:NOTCATALOG. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * VERY STRONG KEEP because AFD is premature, no cleanup effort has even been tried yet. This article has been on WP since 2008 (EIGHT YEARS!) and nobody has EVER added so much as a single citation needed tag in all those years but now suddenly the solution is to WP:BLOWITUP? That is not the WP way. Clearly the subject matter is potentially notable, some of the article sections already have main articles of their own and most are likely to have significant sources available (albiet probably most of those will be in Japanese). The work contributed by others is a good starting point and those contributions should not be eliminated from the encyclopedia but rather treated as an outline that can be expanded and substantiated. Instead of "nuking" the article, add the appropriate cleanup tags and start the cleanup process as it was intended to work at Wikipedia. Koala Tea Of Mercy ( KTOM's Articulations &amp; Invigilations ) 09:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging prior contributors to the article per edit history: ,,,,,,,,,
 * The problem with clean up tags is that you then spend more time waiting for someone to do the work. I take your raise 8 years of no tagging and raise it with it clearly not being improved much in those 8 years. In this case, much of the content can go on other pages rather than being bundled into a list of related items. Also citation needed tags should be for individual statements, not for covering a page in them when hardly any of it is sourced to start with. I don't think this is purely a cleanup issue, it's just not particularly encyclopaedic and list of related things articles tend to be an excuse for otherwise unsuitable pages. With work it could possibly be a great article but I think that should be proven first. If you think it can be improved then you could sandbox an article and present it at a later time? It needs a lot of work and people tend not to get involved in those articles. SephyTheThird (talk) 11:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * STRONG DELETE. Absolutely disgusting article. Does not belong on Wikipedia. Steven Mouseman (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. As a feminist woman I am extremely unhappy with this article, it is disgusting and discriminatory towards women. We absolutely do not need to give exposure to Weekly Shōnen Jump given its extreme misogynist roots and terrorist connections, especially to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. My husband Justin Anthony Knapp is very upset over this article. SamanthaStunner (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: The above comments were struck as they are obvious sock puppets of Cow cleaner 5000. —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, possible merge The list is a mess, but the content should be easily verifiable via primary sources. The question becomes, is this the best way to present it? I would recommend that the content merged into other articles, such as Weekly Shōnen Jump and Shueisha. —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would support the possible merge as an alternative to keep but I think some cleanup effort for the article needs to be attempted first. Koala Tea Of Mercy ( KTOM's Articulations &amp; Invigilations ) 11:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge some content to Weekly Shōnen Jump and redirect to that page (some content may be more suited to other oages). The imprints should be mentioned on the parent title's article for example. I could support recreating the page once the work has been done to improve it (either in sandbox or as a split from WSJ once the content has been improved) SephyTheThird (talk) 11:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What content would benefit Weekly Shōnen Jump? The list of items associated... article is only tied down to primary sources, if a merge takes place then I would be careful not to make it seem promotional. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Angus has pretty much covered my thoughts below. For what it's worth the WSJ article needs work already so I don't see much changing in terms of quality. However  we should see it as an oppurtunity to improve coverage of this important brand.SephyTheThird (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge and trim As the parent article covers the overall brand, it makes sense to place most of this information in there. There should be a Merchandising section, Events section, Online websites and Other ventures sections for the amusement parks. All those external links to the individual things are not needed either. Should any of the items be notable and sourceable to spin off to its own article, then consider it then. But yeah the article as is looks like a corporate catalog. For example: Jump Shop can be reduced to a sentence or two just saying what it is (Merchandise store) and where it's located (Osaka Japan). Jump Festa already has its own events article, so it can be summarized as well to "Jump Festa is an annual multi-day convention, attracting tens of thousands of attendees". AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 14:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Weekly Shōnen Jump is NOT a notable magazine. Greater Wings Did Fly (talk) 07:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * (a) First, and most important, this AfD is not about the WP article on the magazine itself, but about a separate WP article listing related products and events. (b) Second, the claim that Weekly Shōnen Jump is not notable is laughable. I have absolutely no interest in the manga world, but it is obvious that any magazine that has been published for almost 50 years, is translated into multiple languages around the world, and has a home-country circulation of over 6 Million readers is definitely notable. Koala Tea Of Mercy ( KTOM's Articulations &amp; Invigilations ) 07:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Koala Tea Of Mercy, are you trolling or a paid editor? Weekly Shōnen Jump is only known because it is often used as a recruiting tool for ISIL and for children to get off at the extreme amount of ecchi and violent content in its pages. Weekly Shōnen Jump? Notable? Don't make me laugh User:Koala Tea Of Mercy! Greater Wings Did Fly (talk) 07:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: The above comments were struck as they are obvious sock puppets of Cow cleaner 5000. SephyTheThird (talk) 09:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge. List should be incorporated into main article, per AngusWOOF. MrWooHoo (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 04:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Possible WP:TNT considering the state the article is in. Satellizer   (´ ･ ω ･ `)  10:04, 29 March 2016 (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.