Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kochira Katsushika-ku Kameari Kōen-mae Hashutsujo chapters (1–190)

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kochira Katsushika-ku Kameari Kōen-mae Hashutsujo chapters (1–190)

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

Also the following:

These lists are basically lists of every single issue of this manga and the titles of the chapters/stories/sections within them, they are unsourced except for links to the publishers website to actually buy these, they offer no real world context or content of any sort, and there has been no indication in the last 3 years (2 of which were spent as redirects) that this is going to change. Jac16888 ^Talk 22:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Good raise 23:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I agree with the nominator these lists don't serve much purpose especialy for those who don't know Japanese JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per
List of Kochira Katsushika-ku Kameari Kōen-mae Hashutsujo manga volumes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep all. Manga chapters aren't arbitrarily grouped pages in graphic novels of Japanese origin. They are more akin to television episodes. They are published separately in
never amount to anything. On the other hand, it could have something to do with the fact that this series, which happens to be immensely popular in Japan and in continuous production since 1976, has not been released in English. Systemic bias anyone? Good raise 01:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Goodraise I can see why you want to keep these articles as they very well might be useful to use in the future for other purposes, but looking at "What links here" the only things that lead to these pages are wikipedia's mainspace and userpages, seeing that these lists are not in the mainspace they do count as lists. I would support a Userfy here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take it, you acknowledge that chapter lists once finished are useful. So the problem you have with these lists is not what's in them, but what's still missing. Right? If so, I don't see how you can still consider them to be in violation of NOTDIR or redundant to the list of volumes. I also don't see the relevance of incoming links. List articles split primarily because of excessive size (as was the case here) rarely get a lot of directly incoming links. Readers (aka. potential editors) navigate to them by following "Main article:" links down the hierarchy from the corresponding series article (which in this case has a plentiful amount of incoming links). As for userfication, that's a total non sequitur. If you think, as it would seem, that chapter titles are desirable Wikipedia content, then the alternative to keeping the articles would be merging them back into the list of volumes (turning it into a list of chapters again). Good raise 02:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:GNG - there are no independent sources. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 16 January 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.