Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Late night 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 no consensus to delete; default to KEEP. - Philippe 02:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Late night anime

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Completely unsourced dictionary-term type article for a non-notable phrase that is simply a description (and a rather "duh" one at that). Nothing found to support this is some special industry term, and an article is not needed to say that "late night anime are anime television series that air during late night or early morning in Japan, usually between 11 P.M. and 4 A.M." Seems to be entirely WP:OR and personal essay on a completely unnotable topic. Collectonian (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.   —Collectonian (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. "Late-night anime" (or at least 深夜アニメ) is definitely a commonly-used term, and an important one to everyone interested in the recent history of Japanese TV animation. The move from early evening slots on major networks to prepaid late-night slots on UHF channels is a very significant evolution of the industry, both economically and content-wise. The Mainichi Shimbun "entertainment white book" for 2006 has an editorial on the year's marking changes called 「深夜、ネット、Ｕ局へ」 ("Towards late-night, the Internet and UHF channels") describing this evolution, for example. Bikasuishin (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Its still primarily a term. If it is important to the history of anime and more than just one source can be found, perhaps a merge to the anime article, with clean up and sourcing, would be something to consider instead? Collectonian (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A term that is the subject of numerous commentaries in reliable sources (which this one clearly is--the reason I suggested that particlar article is just that I had the book sitting on my desk at the moment) deserves an article of its own, I believe. It's too specific to be merged into anime anyway. One could make a case for a merge into history of anime, but that's probably still too specific a subject, as the phenomenon is only about a decade old (note that late-night anime is mentioned in the last paragraph of that article, so it is reasonable to have a detailed article to expand on that). Bikasuishin (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It still just seems to be a marketing term. I'd like to see some more of the sourced content that doesn't just confirm what it refers to and actually expounds into its important, notability, etc. Collectonian (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of my books are back home, so I can't check the easy references (I'm quite sure books like Moe keizai-gaku or Moe-moe Japan: 2-chou en ichiba no moeru kouzou on the economic side of "moe" have pretty extensive discussions of the late-night anime trend), but here are a few more courtesy of Google:
 * An interview of producer Toshio Nakatani by Mainichi . He discusses how he came about working on late-night anime and how he garnered so much success in those time slots (which such hits as NANA and Death Note).
 * An interview of the representative director of the Akihabara Reasearch Center by the Akiba Keizai Shimbun, where he stresses (among other things) the importance of late-night anime
 * A survey article by ITmedia going over the differences between the American and the Japanese animation industries . Late-night anime is mentioned as a notable feature of the Japanese model.
 * Several hits on Google Books ; the first one alone is likely to have a nice overview of the topic (the book is one of those studies on economics of the otaku market).
 * That's the sort of things that turn up after a quick Google search. Bikasuishin (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * All but the first seems like stuff to go in the actual anime article, not a standalone article on a time slot. Collectonian (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why? They all seem like the subject of the article is the subject of those articles, not anime in general.  Celarnor Talk to me  22:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - if it can be sourced to articles like the one Bikasuishin mentioned. Doceirias (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

*Comment- This is currently an improper AFD as the actual article makes no note of its nomination. There should be a tag on there letting people reading/editing the article know that it has been nominated for an AFD.Insearchofintelligentlife (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC) blocked sock. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've fixed that. Twinkle failed to add it and I didn't think to check. Collectonian (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Bikasuishin. Sci-Fi has recently engaged in this phenomenon with their Ani-monday programming, which is easily sourcable.  Celarnor Talk to me  02:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is about the term specific to its use in Japan, not Sci-Fi channels. Collectonian (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So? It's a notable phenomenon.  Whether the current revision includes all available information or not isn't really relevant.  Celarnor Talk to me  18:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Surmountable sourcing problems are not a valid reason for deletion. Bikasuishin (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides, sources have already been presented. Celarnor Talk to me  22:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see them in the article. Stifle (talk) 11:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Improvement argument, not deletion. Sources clearly exist, they just aren't in the article yet.  Celarnor <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  11:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

*Delete Per Stifle. And you are wrong Bikasuishin. Verifiable sources are a requirement for articles. Articles lacking independent source citations are deleted under Articles for Deletion standards. These articles, however, can be recreated easily if such sources are found later, thus addressing the reason that the article was deleted in the first place.Divinediscourse (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC) — Divinediscourse (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. blocked sock account. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But verifiable sources have already been presented. <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  22:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)I believe "WP:AFD standards" are precisely described by our deletion policy. Can you point me to the part of that policy explaining that we should delete articles that aren't properly sourced yet (as opposed to articles that cannot be sourced at all, and other non-notable topics)? Bikasuishin (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be WP:V. Stifle (talk) 11:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This says that unsourced content may be removed from an article, not that an article on a notable topic should be deleted when it is not properly sourced yet (BLP concerns aside). To those of us without the sysop bit, the distinction is far from immaterial. Bikasuishin (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Collectonian, which pretty much states the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eusebeus (talk • contribs) 22:42, Apr 19, 2008 (UTC)
 * Those points have already been largely refuted by the introduction of sources. Do you have anything new to bring to the discussion?  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  22:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sources have been presented, which means the subject is notable. The other concerns mentioned by Collectonian (besides sources) seem irrelevant to its notability. The article needs a lot of work, though. All the current info seems merely descriptive, and therefore with little enciclopedic value. If "late night anime" is something that made an impact on the anime industry, we need to talk about that on the article; that's enciclopedic content. Kazu-kun (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per efforts to source and establish notability. No reason to delete.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 07:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Two of the above accounts arguing to delete have been confimed as the same person (Divinediscourse and Insearchofintelligentlife). Please see Requests for checkuser/Case/Divinediscourse.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Except Insearchofintelligentlife did not argue for delete, he only noted that the AfD was incomplete when I first started it, so doesn't seem relevant at the moment. Collectonian (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering the astonishingly rapid "votes" and the confirmed alternate account, I do not think we should take into consideration such a "vote". Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? Nothing "astonishingly rapid" about his voting, and unless he is actually double voting, why shouldn't they count? In none of the AfDs he's posted to that are in my watchlist has he actually made two deletes. In one he commented and later said delete, the other just delete. People are allowed to have multiple accounts and I do not see anything showing he is actually running a sockpuppet (multiple accounts for an abusive purpose) rather than just having multiple accounts for different reasons. Collectonian (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * He has been confirmed to have double voted in MULTIPLE AfDs. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep - AFD is not article cleanup. -Malkinann (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - sources provided above show that this is a subject notable in itself and can be written about encyclopedically. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per preceding two entries - AfD is not based on quality and I am prepared to accept there are indep sources. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 21 April 2008 (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.