Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sailor Moon (English adaptations)


 * 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. SorryGuy Talk  18:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sailor Moon (English adaptations)

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

The English adaptations of the anime and manga series Sailor Moon have no notability outside of the series. This article is almost entirely sourced from fan sites and sites that violate WP:COPYVIO, lacks neutrality and contains extensive OR and personal opinion. The English releases of the series are already covered with the appropriate detail in the main article, invalidating any claims that this is a "break out" or "spinout" that doesn't require notability. Collectonian (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.   —Collectonian (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep as on the talk page. WP:MOS-AM states "Articles should be self-contained, only referring to subpages for additional information or details if the main article or a section becomes too long." Furthermore, under "Topics that can reasonably be included" in a main article, we find "issues arising from the transition from...one language to another (such as alterations to storylines, international voice actors, air dates or dates of publication)." --Masamage ♫ 18:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * All of that is already covered elsewhere and ALL of it must be properly sourced by RELIABLE sources, not relying on fansites and copyright violating sites. And, since the MOS does not call for such a section, saying it is a proper subpage is incorrect. Translation issues belong in the appropriate sections of each media, not in a standalone section to allow venting. Collectonian (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's certainly an appropriate subpage when there's stuff to say about the subject, and my opinion is that there is. References, of course, can always be changed to better sources, and an article being currently flawed is not an appropriate argument for deletion. Meanwhile, if the issue is primarily about organization and you think this should be trimmed down, split and merged into the different media pages, then this is decidedly the wrong venue for such a discussion. --Masamage ♫ 18:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is nothing salvageable from this article, nor does anything need to be. It is already covered in the appropriate place. Collectonian (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: The argument from WP:MOS-AM is fallacious -- the MOS should be considered a minimum lower bound of what is needed for complete treatment of a subject, not an upper bound of what to include. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not saying such an article is required; I'm saying it has precedent as something that could be permissible. --Masamage ♫ 20:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Right -- and I was saying to Collectonian that absence from the MOS should not be considered as barring it. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ohh, I see. Okay. --Masamage ♫ 21:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Given the large number of articles linking to this one, if the article is deleted a redirect to Sailor Moon had better be left behind. Still thinking about the nomination's merits. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, with the number of links, if deleted then a recreate as a redirect would be a good idea. Collectonian (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: The consensus keep in Articles for deletion/Editing of anime in American distribution suggests that, in general, articles about anime adaptations when there are contraversial changes can be encyclopedic in principle. There are serious editoral concerns with this article, especially with WP:NPOV and WP:RS, but there's enough of the latter to show there is contraversy, if not to source the details. Together, these things make me inclined to a keep+fixit, but I'm willing to listen to other arguments while I think about it some more. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The practice in general. However, one could argue that Articles for deletion/English adaptations of Tokyo Mew Mew and Articles for deletion/International adaptations of Tokyo Mew Mew. shows that show specific articles on adaptations are not. The first had similar content and sourcing as this article for Sailor Moon, and also already was covered in the main article in a shorter format. Collectonian (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Definitely a notable topic, and if there are NPOV/RS issues that can be addressed within the article. I'm not even an anime fan and even I'm aware of the importance of this topic, as Sailor Moon is arguably one of the major anime imports and the "Westernizing" of it has been a matter of contention, and not just at the fan level either; you've got people writing doctoral theses on anime these days. 23skidoo (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:CRUFT, stick to topics with real-world impact / analysis. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This is exactly the sort of real world information that is appropriate for an encyclopedia. 'Real world impact' is not he consideration for inclusion of articles. Even if it were, if these adaptation are widely known, they have impact.DGG (talk) 04:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge into the relevant anime/manga articles. The topic would be better treated as part of the respective series pages for the anime or manga and part of the development/localization history in those articles, with relevant tidbits being added to the respective page of the specific Sailor Moon anime arcs. As it stands, the present article asserts zero notability, and per Collectonian, previous AfDs have shown that separate pages for the adaptations are not viewed as appropriate. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 05:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

* Non-Western Sexuality Comes to the U.S.: A Crash Course in Manga and Anime for Sexologists. Author: Cornog, Martha; Perper, Timothy Journal: Contemporary Sexuality Pub.: 2005-03 Volume: 39 Issue: 3 Pages: 1(4) ISSN: 10945725 Pages: 4(0) ISSN: 03624331 Author: Browning, Sheila Rose.; Takeuchi, Naoko. Publication: 2004 Dissertation: Thesis (M.A.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2004. Document: English : Book : Thesis/dissertation/manuscript Archival Material Archival Material Internet Resource Internet Resource Dissertation: Thesis (M.A. in Asian Studies)-- University of California, Berkeley, Dec. 1997.
 * Strong keep - The English adaptation of Sailor Moon does have real-world impact. This is the English wikipedia, as everyone knows, and the adaptation from the original Japanese series is crucial in understanding what was changed. This series is known for the major difference in the English and Japanese anime. By major changes, I'm talking about shifting lesbians to cousins, gays to women or het, deletion of "nudity" scenes and removal of Japanese culture. Sephiroth, I think the reason for the creation of this page is to compile the massive English adaption change, rather then including the so called "tidbits" into various articles. Like you said, as it stands, it has no notability, but I'm sure people could find out useful real world information to satisfy the notability guideline. The previous AFD for the other adaptation articles, the example being English adaptations of Tokyo Mew Mew, was worth it. That article was not correctly cited and contain loads of OR. Here however, if we are talking about opinions and neutrality, those can be easily addressed. References, or better ones actually, can be inserted in. We know the so called OR is true, anybody who watches the series can tell, it's just a matter of citing them with references. -- Hana ichi  08:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Very well-stated. The article has problems now, but they are all decidedly fixable. --Masamage ♫ 20:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please provide evidence to back up your claim that it has real-world impact and meets WP:FICT. Discussion of Sailor Moon in general does NOT give notability specifically to the English adaptation Collectonian (talk) 02:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Contains valuable information on the vast differences of the English language version; which was sometimes changed so much it was hardly anything like it's original. This detailed guide is very useful, particularly for newcomers to the series who wouldn't otherwise know. Blaedvanderwoodsen (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So after some thought, I'm going to recomment keep and remand to WikiProject Anime and Manga for cleanup and better sourcing. This is one of the flagship franchises, so to speak, of anime adaptations into English, and features in the examples from Editing of anime in American distribution -- but it needs hella work to prove that. If after a suitable amount of time (a couple months, say) nothing has been improved, and so proven, then revisit the issue. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Extra help from the parent WikiProject would be vastly appreciated. :) --Masamage ♫ 03:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Sailor Moon is a main anime of its genre and was an early title in the flood of anime series to enter Western markets since the mid-90's. The article may contain fancruft, but that's a reason for clean-up, not deletion. This article, as all articles, needs to be judged on its own merit-- the status and nature of other anime articles has nothing to do with this, more notable, topic.   I will respectfully disagree with this who call this topic un-encyclopedic. It meets WP:RS.  There's a lot of crap in wikipedia. I've advocated for the deletion and merger of articles which essentially are nothing more than fan biographies and summaries of popular series as part of WP:FICT re-development.  Sailor Moon was a pioneering series in terms of the western adoption of animation. There's a small body of literatures that deals with the marketing efforts of the producers and how the producers tried to cash in on the success of the series through marketing.  The most famous of this was an article by syndicated columnist Dave Barry.  There are also a small body scholarship outlining the failure of the show to achieve wide popularity in the US, despite strong showings elsewhere.  Intertwined with the marketing articles are the articles about sexuality and "girl power".  Here's a brief quick-and-dirty scan of the available sources for this article. I do not currently have the time to edit Wikipedia.  However if anyone who wants to help clean this article up would like me to help gain access to them for sourcing purposes, drop me a note on my talk page.
 * GIRLS IN CARTOONS; Japan's Pioneers. Journal: New York Times (1/1/1985 to present) Pub.: 2000-09-24
 * A Challenge to Hollywood? Japanese Character Goods Hit the US. Author: Allison, Anne Journal: Japanese Studies Pub.: 2000-05 Volume: 20 Issue: 1 Pages: 67(22) ISSN: 10371397
 * Pretty little girl warriors : a study of images of femininity in Japanese Sailor Moon comics /
 * Sailor moon and the Shojo-ization of male imagery / Author: Dvorak, Julianne Komori. Publication: 1997
 * Warriors of legend : reflections of Japan in Sailor Moon (unauthorized) / Jay Navok; Sushil K Rudranath;  Jonathan Mays 2005 2nd ed. English Book Book 147 p. : ill., maps ; 21 cm. North Charleston, S.C. : BookSurge, LLC, ; ISBN: 1419608142 9781419608148
 * Millennial Monsters: Japanese Toys and the Global Imagination / by Allison, Anne. English Book Book Internet Resource Internet Resource xxii, 332 p. : ill. ; 23 cm. Berkeley : University of California Press, ; ISBN: 0520221486 (cloth : alk. paper)
 * Note: I created this article as part of a split (due to size) from the main Sailor Moon page. --Kunzite (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No one is disputing Sailor Moon's notability. What is in dispute is this list/article regarding only the English adaptation. How much of those sources you listed are actually give significant coverage ot teh English adaptation versus being about Sailor Moon itself? Collectonian (talk) 18:19, 14 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.