Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Editing of anime in American distribution (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep. The nominator and other interested editors are encouraged to improve the article instead of nominating it for deletion. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience  t 01:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Editing of anime in American distribution
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is in a very bad condition. It is full of trivia and is rather unencyclopedic. Some of the sections are completely unsourced. It was nominated once before, but no improvements have been made since early 2008. DodingBeast (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:DINC, this article would not fall under any WP:CSD criteria. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep While the article does need major help, the subject meets the notability guidelines. Opencooper (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep As stated the subject is extremely well covered in reliable expert sources, and has been since the very birth of anime fandom. There is more than enough sources already attached to show this. The issues of content itself can all be largely resolved by simply removing entire blocks of material so we can assess what is left. As much as we could nuke it and start again, we can also start that process by hacking away at the material which is causing the issue. I'm pretty sure I can do that first part at least.SephyTheThird (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've started the process, however I can only do so much on a tablet so will continue later. I'm being quite aggressive, some things I recognise and can be sourced but leaving them in just in case they get fixed later wouldn't be solving the issue. I'll see about leaving a list on the talk page of possible additions.SephyTheThird (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Article is now almost half the file size. I've removed a lot of the obvious trivia, statements supported by fansites and statements making obvious WP:OR comparisons and conclusions. There is surely more that could come out but it's no longer excessive and will naturally be changed through development of that page. I'll look into some source articles for long term editing but this article was fairly easy to start cleaning up. There is no need to delete it.SephyTheThird (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. It needs some cleanup for sure, but it's a very notable topic in relation to anime, which is a big industry. 72.196.117.242 (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Not much needs to be said about this one. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:02, 4 February 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.