Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great anime


 * 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, almost CSD G1, and by overwhelming consensus. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 04:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Great anime
Inherently POV article, starting with the title. Contains limited invalid facts and a POV listing of titles. This article contributes nothing that Anime doesn't or couldn't. —C.Fred (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - Blatantly POV, considering that the animation and drawing style for The Boondocks was inspired by anime in the first place. Nate 01:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Horrifically written POV list. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 01:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions.   -- NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 01:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete baed on the fact that it's entirely POV, and also for lines like this:
 * Anime is the Japenese form of animation. It is very detailed and is much more complicated than the Peanuts or the Boondocks.
 * In addition, it seems to be mostly written by a bored DBZ fan. --Wafulz 01:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In addition, it seems to be mostly written by a bored DBZ fan. --Wafulz 01:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete serious POV issues, but also, nothing unique is gained from this article that is not present in other related articles. will381796 01:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete very, very stupid. Danny Lilithborne 01:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * delete - not that I really need to state a reason, the article speaks for itself in that regard, but "Great" is inherantly POV and we already have Notable anime. The article itself is written in a highly POV-style ("THX ;)" has no place in any encyclopedic article other than Internet slang) and is unsavageably badly written. Shiroi Hane 01:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and everyone else. Daniel Case 01:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Jon Cates 01:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If I could have found a category for it, I would have. —C.Fred (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The best you can hope for a closing admin to declare WP:SNOWBALL, which this AfD rightly qualifies for. --TheFarix (Talk) 02:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete —  per above Dionyseus 01:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per all above. -- Kinu t /c  01:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom -- Whpq 02:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is original research from one author. - Richardcavell 02:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Absolute nonsense which doesn't contribute to an encyclopedia in any way, shape, or form. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and this article is a soapbox speech of the babbling kind. --TheFarix (Talk) 02:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Great delete. This belongs on a personal website or blog.  --Thatdog 03:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as above. --Kunzite 03:24, 21 August 2006 (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.