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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of anime[edit]

This list is completely unmanageable as more and more titles are being released. It is also basically a duplication of Category:Anime and its subcategories, which do a far better job of keeping track of these articles. I suggest redirects be created for any titles on this list that have them listed, and then deep sixing this article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete I'm fairly sure this list was deleted before... Danny Lilithborne 20:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't find it in the deletion log, but delete anyway for the reasons stated above. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As Joe says, a list with so many blue links is redundant when there is a category. And the few red links will probably be blue-linked soon. --Rizzleboffin 21:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obsolete, this list has long since been replaced by the Anime genre cats. --TheFarix (Talk) 21:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a long and obsolete list --RMHED 22:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We have a category for this. --John Nagle 00:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, unnecessary and unmaintainable list. The category is fine. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 03:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep It's very useful as a source of links to other pages for old or obscure shows that many people would not know about otherwise. As for being redundant in the Anime article, someone's going to complain that that article is too long with its version and delete that. Frankly, this list is far more useful than many articles which ARE kept. Usually, these delete attempts are by some troll who just wants something on his user list. CFLeon 03:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please assume good faith. Also, we have a category that serves this list's purpose, is more easily maintained, and contains more anime. The list isn't needed anymore. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 03:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd be right with you, CFL, if I thought some information were being lost by this article's deletion. But the categories serve the purpose this list does. To take an example, look at Gigantor. it's listed at the Categories : Anime series, Mecha anime, Anime dubbed into English and Mecha manga. These categories more than cover the list. This list is just redundant. --Rizzleboffin 04:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As Coredesat previously stated, assume good faith. Nihonjoe is a long standing member of WP:Anime and has done considerable work on improve anime and manga related articles, which is more then I can say for others who simply put the project's userbox on their userpage as a statues symbol but doesn't do anything to improve anime and manga articles. Also, since the recategorization of anime articles from the main Category:Anime to the genre categories easier this year, the deletion of this and a couple of other lists have been long in coming. --TheFarix (Talk) 12:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Saying "this article is more useful than other articles which are kept" is not a good reason to keep. Danny Lilithborne 00:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Split into smaller lists and Redirect to a "list of lists" per something like Lists of video games and computer games. Nifboy 06:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment On second thought... I agree with the consensus that this list as it stands-- a simple alphabetical listing of titles-- is redundant to the categories. However, a list can be informative in a way that a category cannot. For example, just reordering the list chronologically would be useful in a way that an alphabetically-ordered category is not. Also other information can be put after the title-- for example the director, author or studio that produced the anime. Reordering the list chronologically would be a lot of work, but, I think, useful. Just an idea. --Rizzleboffin 17:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Further thought on the matter: By doing the list chronologically, we could break the article down into decades. List of 1960s anime, List of 1970s anime... A paragraph summary of anime activity in each decade could be put at the top of each article. This would address the problem of the list's unwieldy size, make the article into not just a category/list, but a historical chronology of the development of anime (with a list of every anime, which is beyond the scope of the History of anime article), and also be helpful for those of us who are interested more in one particular era of anime than others. --Rizzleboffin 20:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would suggest creating a series of "anime by year" subcategories like other genres do rather than making more unmaintainable lists. i.e. Category:1955_films; Category:1981 musicalsThese lists are never up to date and they're much more easily maintained by the category system. --Kunzite 18:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sayonara wasurenaide. Redundant to the category system. We keep a very nice list of requested animanga titles. Redlinks can be easily moved or redirected to correct titles. --Kunzite 18:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just no one put the two genre lists up for AfD until I'm finished going through them. ;) See my userpage for what I'm planning on doing with them. --TheFarix (Talk) 21:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: I use this page on a daily basis or higher. If it is getting too long, then I would suggest dividing it up alphabetically, or by genre catagory (although that would be a tricky and uncertain thing), or by decade, or studio/production company.24.174.86.146 20:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)H Newcomb

Comment Decade/chronologically would be my recommendation. As for it being "unmanagable," that's because the article just throws everything together, in an alphabetical list. In other words, it's just a category. Separate it by decades, and I, for one, would work on the '60s, and I'm sure others would work on other decades that they are interested in. As I've said before though, the article currently is redundant to the categories. But a list can be made into a more informative article than a category can be. Put them in order by when they were made, add info after the title like studio, creator, etc., add an intro paragraph describing activity/trends for the decade... and we would have something of value. Rizzleboffin 20:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Using the categories is just as easy, and will also point you to articles that have not every been listed on this extremely outdated list. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: it should be a cetegory, not a page. CRGreathouse (talk • contribs) 20:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongest possible keep: the main problem with the list is that it just isn't set up properly. I've been working my ass off to make List of manga useful and if given time will format the anime list in the same fashion. The lists are not simple category duplications, they provide Japanese titles and (in the manga list) information on if they have been licensed in English or not. Not to mention that they are much easier to navigate than a category. I will agree that specific manga/anime lists such as those that narrow down to genres should be turned into cats, but the main lists are very useful and should be kept. --SeizureDog 02:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Although largely redundant to the categories, there are some entries in the list that the categories do not have (ie. red links). Also, if this list is given the treatment that the List of manga has, and is divided chronologically, it can be a very useful list. _dk 03:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are the redlinked titles notable? Are they spinoffs that are better served under the initial article? Are they listed on the Japan-related request page? We really don't need an article for every single anime or manga title ever made. We don't need a stub for every anime or manga ever made. As Jimbo said in this week's Wikipedia Times, we need to focus on quality of article and not quantity. I think we should pick an anime or manga seires and improve it to Excel Saga (featured) or Planetes (good) standards rather than focusing efforts difficult to maintain lists. --Kunzite 17:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are the redlinked titles notable? Some of them, yes. The English Wikipedia is greatly lacking in animanga articles, even compared to the French wiki. The problem is not that the redlinked animes are non-notable, it's that there is no one to write about them (hint hint: systemic bias anyone?) Regarding spinoffs, I agree with you. _dk 01:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. What would be useful is a list of anime's with different original and "dub" titles, since that's about the only thing that I can see the list being really useful for. However, such a list would only require those animes that had two different titles, and thus would not be a list of all anime. -- Ned Scott 06:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article in it's current form should be deleted, but the idea of a list article might not be bad. Simply put, there are some things that can't be done in a category view that would be helpful to such a list, such as alternative titles, listing animes such as .hack//sign under "." and "H", showing sequel / prequel order, etc. I would suggest that someone make a copy of the article as it stands now to a user page or maybe a sub-page of WP:ANIME (or use this copy).

While the above examples I gave would make for a useful list, it would still be a massive list that would almost be impossible to maintain. There are probably other anime websites that have such lists/ databases that can handle such a task much better. We're here to include the content and reasonably help the reader find that content, but we can't do everything. -- Ned Scott 06:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there are alternate titles, they should be incorporated using redirects rather than being on a list somewhere. This will allow someone to search for the alternate title and still find the correct article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, true.. just categorize the redirects too. -- Ned Scott 08:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've voted above, so I don't want to give an appearance of trying to vote twice, but I do want to address several of the comments made. Most of the negative votes seem to be either "I don't like it/or find it useful so no one else needs it." or "the page is redundant with various category listings". The first one is pretty subjective, don't you think? Just because Johnny Mecha the mecha expert, doesn't find anything new in this list, doesn't mean that Suzy Newbie, who has just discovered anime, won't. I consider myself pretty well-read about anime, and I've found new stuff here (usually either new shows or alternative names for older shows, but that's beside the point I'm making). As to the Catagory complaint, first of all, while there are certainly trends in anime, one of its appeals is that many shows don't really fit in well into 3 or 4 simplistic pigeonholes. And also, it assumes knowledge of what category the show you're looking for fits in. For instance, someone looking for Sazae-san: they have heard of it, but know NOTHING more than the name (that's why they're searching for more information). They're not even certain of the spelling. With this list, all they need to do is look in the "S" section, and they find the link. It's easy and helps newbies learn more about the subject. I certainly see the point that the size may be a problem, but there are certainly longer listings on Wikipedia (I've just looked up 'Volcanoes" and 'Fish') and I can find nothing about maximum sizes of such listings. Certainly, if this list gets too big for one page, go ahead and break it up into 2 or 3 (or more) pages by letter. I do like the idea above of a chronological listing, probably by decade. BTW, if anyone is really serious in trimming articles which have grown too large, I would suggest looking at the entries for many popular movies, TV shows or novels, which seem to attempt to include every unnecessary minor plot detail, sometimes two or three times. CFLeon 08:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about it being so long, but being hard to maintain. It is much easier to maintain a category than a list. Also, you said "With this list, all they need to do is look in the "S" section, and they find the link.", they'd be able to do this via category too.. I've converted a few list articles into categories in the past, and the appearance of the category page vs the article were almost exactly alike. The only difference is you can't put in some form of note or something next to a category entry, but considering how much better maintained a category is likely to be vs a list, I think it's a fair trade off. And as Nihonjoe pointed out to me above, you can use redirects for alternative titles, since you can categorize a redirect. -- Ned Scott 08:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes talks about some of the pro's and con's of lists vs categories. -- Ned Scott 08:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I voted above to delete, and I stand by that vote, since the article as it stands is nothing more than a category. (It needs to be pointed out however, that there is actually no large "anime" category listing every anime article in alphabetical order, but a bewildering page full of subcategories which link to sub-subcategories. If the article is deleted, shouldn't there actually be a plain and simple "Anime" category put in place which actually does make this list redundant?) But I agree with your points, CFLeon, and think that it would be worthwhile to create new decade articles listing the anime in chronological order with some info after (for example, see entries I added in the the 'Y' section yesterday, with Japanese, # of episodes, and dates of original airing). Rizzleboffin 20:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not because the subject isn't notable or important; it's just too huge to ever be even close to completion. A good category, a poor article. Ifnord 15:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it's much more doable than you think. The only real area of trouble would be older shows from the 70s and such, but if focus is kept on licensed series then even that isn't a problem. I don't believe that there too terribly many (licensed) shows that are missing an article.--SeizureDog 00:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But why would they be focused only on licensed shows? What about films? What about flash-animation? What about independents? I simply think this list could go on forever and it'll be hell to maintain. Ifnord 01:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have gone ahead and formatted the Numbers & Symbols section and am willing to do the entire list but will wait until the deletion review is over before that. While I would like to add additional information to the list such as dates, I find that having the three titles takes up a lot of space and additional boxes can end up rather cramped, especially on lower resolutions. It would be nice to get consensus on what information would be liked to be included and how to sort it. Personally, I'm for alphabetical, but if it's wished to be done chronologically it's important to know if it should be sorted by decade, year, or strict date of first airing.--SeizureDog 01:22, 15 August 2006 (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.