Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Market share of government-approved Japanese history textbooks

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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Market share of government-approved Japanese history textbooks

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

Delete. WP is not a spreadsheet?? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Textbook example of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a spreadsheet or a statistics book. JIP | Talk 09:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of sovereign states list of U.S. States list of american football league seasons List of Presidents of the United States List of British Monarchs etc. etc. etc. That is a very weak claim JIP. Stidmatt (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles are not comparable to the one up for deletion. The former contain "information" whereas the later is solely numerical data. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I'd like to politely direct Stidmatt to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS & WP:POINT. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 07:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced and does not establish what exactly the article is supposed to be about for one, this type of information is not really suited for Wikipedia. OSborn^arf_contribs. 05:41, 28 February 2012 (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.