Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of anime distributed in the United States

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 rework as a prose article covering the history of anime distribution in the United States. The copy-paste draft at Draft:History of anime in the United States may be used for this after a history merge has been completed; alternatively, the parent article could be moved into draftspace if a history merge isn't feasible. I do not perform history merges myself, and offer no opinion on which route is preferable, but there is consensus against the continued existence of this article in mainspace. Apologies for any confusion that may have resulted from the previous closing statement: I hadn't realized the existing draft was a copy-paste userfication. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of anime distributed in the United States

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

Massively useless list with overly broad inclusion criteria. Fails to explain why a list of anime released in the US is significant. From about the 2000-2010s onwards, the inclusion criteria effectively expands to nearly all anime- it would be much more notable if a recent anime had not been released in the United States. The prose does have some promise, but it is nearly entirely unsourced and far too excessively detailed for this purpose, and it would be better served being reworked into a different article with a clearer focus (I've already

WP:USERFIED the page content with the intent of trying to do something of the sort when I have the chance). As such, I believe this list should either be deleted or else reworked into a more constructive list that has less broad inclusion criteria. Joyce-stick (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment. This argument is neither valid nor persuasive, as it constitutes
    WP:LISTCRITERIA, which are especially pertinent here. If you have and would like to attempt an argument for why this page does satisfy the conditions stipulated under those guidelines, then by all means feel free to do so. Joyce-stick (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I would wait until the draft is completed. NavjotSR (talk) 08:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer. While I don't think that this is necessarily notable for the mainspace (I haven't looked in deep enough to determine that), the very fact that this content has been userfied will create issues with Wikipedia's licensing and the copyrights. Per
    WP:HISTMERGE to be performed for legal reasons. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep, an adequate listing of the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per
    WP:WORLDVIEW, and broad criteria considerations. I wouldn't oppose making a category for the titles to help with cleanup related issues. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2022 (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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.