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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Late night anime[edit]

Late night anime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The series has 1 source that doesn't show the notability of the topic. The series has 1 source in the article and a few others in the previous AfD that don't support the article. Furthermore, the article is chalked full of OR and finally it appears to be a WP:POVFORK from anime WP:UNDUEly emphasizing the importance of late night anime over other types without the sources to back it up. EDIT: There are a couple more sources in the previous AFD found, but they don't really demonstrate the notability of this getting a seperate article which is essentially a POVFORK even with the 2-3 other sources found. Furthermore, much of the info is still OR. Even with those sources they could not support an entire article and its likely at this point no new sources will be found, even if they were, there is no indiciation why from any of those sources Late night anime is so special that it needs such in depth coverage compared to anime in general.

EDIT: The article is also essentially a WP:NEOlogism which is normally not kept.∞陣内Jinnai 23:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete even though I can fully understand (as a matter of personal fact) why this might be worthy of an article. Without some work to provide reliable sources it fails WP:OR and WP:V, not to mention WP:NEO as well. I can't agree that it's an WP:POVFORK without evidence to support that assertion, though. Regardless, there seems to have been a consensus in the previous AfD that if sources would be added to support the assertion this article should exist then it would be kept. They clearly haven't been, so the position should be re-considered. Aren't articles supposed to become better sourced, not worse? -Rushyo ^Talk 23:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but absolutely allow this to be userfied. There's no resources and without those (even though I can vouch that most of this is correct) this is just an original research essay. I tried finding things on the internet and while it's something that comes up with a ton of ghits, none of those hits are anything that could even begin to be used as a reliable source. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

• Changing vote to keep per sources found by Gwern. My search-fu must be off tonight as far as anime goes. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

• Keep. Late-night anime is a crucial change in the history of anime, which to a great degree is responsible for the efflorescence of anime in the late '90s and '00s (and subsequent bubble popping, leading to the current otaku-centric trends as they are where the money is) since it provided a new demand for complex sophisticated series which catered more to adults (and critics, eg. a lot of stuff on Noitamina) rather than the standard kidfare of Pokemon or Sailor Moon; if the sources are inadequate, that is the fault of editors and not the topic - they are definitely there in Japan. For example, the Anime Encyclopedia's "Censorship and Localization" entry:

"Many of the short "TV series" sold to the American market began as late-night programs airing long past midnight, and can have content designed to match. Primetime television in Japan has become increasingly censorious since the mid-1990s, when controversial episodes of EVANGELION were broadcast without prior executive approval. The resultant timidity on the part of broadcasters has played into the hands of the late-night shows and cable networks, with shows such as GANTZ enjoying two distinct existences: one in a widely available but edited form and another i n a more graphic version requiring cable subscription or DVD rental. In the case of COWBOY BEBOP, the main story arc was only seen on WOWOW and DVDs-the version seen on terrestrial TV was missing 14 episodes."

Or look at this translation, of an interview with a veteran producer in the Mainichi Shimbun, whose intro talks almost entirely about late night anime in the same terms as above: "Midnight anime has given birth to a series of hit works from K-On to Madoka Magica. As anime programs are now disappearing from golden time slots, its presence has gained prominence. But since when did its history start?" etc. (Both are, it is hopefully needless to say, two monstrously popular series/franchises.) Nor is that the only Mainichi piece I could quote. As usual, I refer those who want more to my CSE. --Gwern (contribs) 08:44 4 December 2011 (GMT)

That doesn't mean it deserves its own article. There isn't much to say about it as its imo a POVFORK and Rushyo a WP:NEOlogism. There are a lot of items that changed anime industry that do not get their own special article, such as the Summer anime, adaptations of video games (especially visual novels) or the the reverse, the influence anime has had on video games, changes to western culture, the impact of CG, etc. Why? Not because you can't find anything about them because you can. It's because there isn't much to say that cannot be summarized in the main article instead of spinning it out and adding a bunch of OR and conjecture.∞陣内Jinnai 16:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not every article has to be huge. And it's clearly not a neologism, not that I know why you're calling an editor a neologism in the first place. --Gwern (contribs) 18:22 4 December 2011 (GMT)

Sorry if it sounded wrong, but i wasn't called the editor one. However it is one and it is unlikely to be of any length that cannot be better summarized under anime or history of anime. It also looks to me much like a POVFORK by promoting this type of anime time slot above others.∞陣内Jinnai 18:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of anime might be a reasonable target since the 1990s section is covertly discussing the late-night boom already. But did that need an AFD? --Gwern (contribs) 19:06 4 December 2011 (GMT)

Considering the last time it was kept because basically it was said sources would be placed in to show notability and the article has only gotten worse. It is chalked full of research, is a biased term (it talks about only the US while the article implies it shouldn't be geographic-centric, it is a probable neologism and a POVFORK. At this point it would be better to delete the almost completely unsourced article and start from scratch at another point and actually follow WP:SS instead blatantly ignoring it. That's why; the article shouldn't even exist. Even WP:IMPERFECT does not allow for biased articles to stay.∞陣内Jinnai 01:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Gwern makes a good case. And whenever a channel was showing late night anime, it got coverage. Dream Focus 22:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Gwern's arguments.--Cavarrone (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I fail to see how this article isn't of an unencyclopedian nature. It's an appropriate, significant topic. I also fail to see how this is original research since the term and concept clearly exists outside of this article. At worst, the article could use some work but it otherwise looks fine to me. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 17:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It still violates NPOV.∞陣内Jinnai 18:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoo de doo. You know that NPOV issues are not what AfD is for. --Gwern (contribs) 19:15 5 December 2011 (GMT)

The arguments thus far have been "well there's some info out there about this", but none have addressed the issues why this should exist as a seperate article.∞陣内Jinnai 19:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that's really all you got out of my !vote, then I think I'm done here. You have something against the article and I don't know what, but it's not something my arguments can help with. --Gwern (contribs) 19:41 5 December 2011 (GMT)

My reasons for it are stated above. I acknowledge the subject may technically meet the GNG, but it violates a number of other policies and guidelines.∞陣内Jinnai 21:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Nowhere in WP:DEL#REASON is NPOV mentioned. Before nominating articles for deletion, consult these guidelines first in the future. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 21:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neologisms are specifically though.∞陣内Jinnai 21:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Yeah, and this isn't a neologism. You could've just looked at the first reference and see the term in existing sources: http://www.crunchyroll.com/anime-news/2011/11/19-1/japans-anime-broadcast-ethics-complaints-for-october-2011 --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 22:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Look up the definition of neologism. Just because a few sources use it doesn't make it mainstream. Find me a RS site (beyond an SPS blog or the like) whose primary audience isn't anime and manga or similar demographic and I'll withdraw that assertion.∞陣内Jinnai 01:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - clearly a notable, even widespread concept on Japanese TV. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm a bit torn on this one. While it's true the subject matter certainly belongs on Wikipedia, Jinnai makes a valid point: it may not be deserving of it's own article. Despite this, my !vote's going to be keep or merge, perhaps to Anime or Television in Japan. One look at the Japanese counterpart to this article shows me that there are sources out there to verify the content and establish it's notability, and we could use the sources listed there as a good starting place to do just that. Even if they're not enough to hold up an entire article on their own, they could at least be used to support merged content. But total deletion of the content just doesn't seem very wise to me. -waywardhorizons (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2011 (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.