Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notable names in anime
From 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 delete. CitiCat ♫ 14:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Notable names in anime
Unfortunately, I have to conclude that this list is mostly original research because there are no reliable third-party sources referencing these individuals as "the most influential and notable names in anime." Membership on the list appears to be entirely based on the editors' discretion and will inevitably have problems with WP:NPOV. --Farix (Talk) 21:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: So fix it and add some references. Looking down the list, it shouldn't be too difficult to find references indicating notable status for these individuals. It's getting annoying to see articles being nominated which only need some references, especially by people who participate in a WikiProject specifically about the topic of the article in question. Rather than nominating such articles, it would be more productive, and a better use of everyone's time, if you instead tried to improve the articles, and only nominated those for which you could find no references. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. This can't be "fixed" by adding references, because the choice of what references to use in order to decide "notability" (as defined by this article) will be original research itself. The use of the word "Notable" in the article's name shows it will always be a subjective article, since all people who have articles are notable by Wikipedia standards, so this is using some arbitrary measure to limit the names to the ones on the list. Crazysuit 04:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's a little extreme. For just about any topic out there, a decision has to be made about what sources to use. That decision is never considered original research. Even with anime, there are those considered to be good references. You can see some here. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Do you have a better suggestion for a replacement word? "Notable" was likely used because it's something which can be easily and clearly shown through solid references. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- This isn't comparable to "just about any topic", since very few articles like this even exist. That is, articles that are entirely based on subjective opinions of who is "notable" or "important". Choosing sources is only original research when, in cases like this, those sources are being used to assert an opinion or a POV. Crazysuit 19:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and replace with a category, as it is not for us to determine who is notable among the notables and who is not Corpx 06:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- A category wouldn't be a better choice in this case as it would be harder to control the entries. Besides, it would still require determination of who was notable and was not, so that isn't really a good argument. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- No, I meant something like Category:Anime composers, not Category:Notable Anime Composers Corpx 06:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, there're already the various categories within Category:Anime industry. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's well sufficient :) Corpx 07:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, there're already the various categories within Category:Anime industry. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- No, I meant something like Category:Anime composers, not Category:Notable Anime Composers Corpx 06:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- A category wouldn't be a better choice in this case as it would be harder to control the entries. Besides, it would still require determination of who was notable and was not, so that isn't really a good argument. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as I've added some very reliable sources to back up the inclusion of many of the individuals in the article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - sourced or not, the very concept here is inherently subjective. I don't see any reason for it to exist. Doceirias 03:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- No more subjective than any other articles which contain sourced statements or attributions of notability for one reason or another. This article just happens to gather several individuals together, and it now has references for the notability of many of the individuals on the list. With the references, it certainly meets WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS, and (at least for the individuals who have references) is no longer WP:OR as the attribution of notability is referenced and attributed to a reliable third party source. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Far more subjective. You can prove that those people are notable, but not that the list itself is worth having. Doceirias 05:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Regardless, all of the concerns expressed by Farix have been addressed. And the list is subjective only so far as any list or criteria for notability are subjective. All of the referenced individuals are clearly notable based on the references provided. I'm fine with removing others from the list until such time as reliable sources can be provided showing they are clearly notable. But saying that the list itself is worthless is absurd. It may be worthless to you (as you may not have any interest in the topic), but to someone seeking to research anime in general, the list is clearly an excellent starting point for seeing who are the best-regarded and most important names in the business. That's the whole point of an encyclopedia, isn't it? Provide good, sourced information that can be used to further research on a given topic? This list clearly meets all applicable criteria for being kept, so unless you can find something other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT for a reason, your argument has nothing solid on which to be based. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think you've addressed those concerns at all. This kind of article has no business on Wikipedia in the first place. This has nothing to do with arguments about how should be on the list and who should not be; I'm disputing the existence of the list itself as inherently unencyclopedic. It isn't the function of Wikipedia to tell readers who is important and who is not, but to tell them why someone is important and what they have done. This type of article belongs on some other website, and wikipedia is where readers of that article come looking for a specific name and further reading on that subject. Doceirias 05:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Regardless, all of the concerns expressed by Farix have been addressed. And the list is subjective only so far as any list or criteria for notability are subjective. All of the referenced individuals are clearly notable based on the references provided. I'm fine with removing others from the list until such time as reliable sources can be provided showing they are clearly notable. But saying that the list itself is worthless is absurd. It may be worthless to you (as you may not have any interest in the topic), but to someone seeking to research anime in general, the list is clearly an excellent starting point for seeing who are the best-regarded and most important names in the business. That's the whole point of an encyclopedia, isn't it? Provide good, sourced information that can be used to further research on a given topic? This list clearly meets all applicable criteria for being kept, so unless you can find something other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT for a reason, your argument has nothing solid on which to be based. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Far more subjective. You can prove that those people are notable, but not that the list itself is worth having. Doceirias 05:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- No more subjective than any other articles which contain sourced statements or attributions of notability for one reason or another. This article just happens to gather several individuals together, and it now has references for the notability of many of the individuals on the list. With the references, it certainly meets WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS, and (at least for the individuals who have references) is no longer WP:OR as the attribution of notability is referenced and attributed to a reliable third party source. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep' (and rename) I think the article has been unfortunately named. Can we rename it to something like "List of " or something. -- Taku 08:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Every description for each notable name can be brought over to their respective articles, if they're not there already. KyuuA4 17:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Doceirias, among others. It's patently a POV issue for Wikipedia to have a list of who is notable. (Not to mention redundant, since every person in the category "Anime Industry" should have been notable in order to have an article created around them). --Bfigura (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: since the biggest problem seems to be people having a problem with the title of the article, I have moved it to List of historically influential people in anime, which should be much more palatable to these individuals as it no longer has the apparently controversial word "notable" in the title. Is this acceptable? Can we agree that this kind of list can be easily maintained, referenced, etc., etc.? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- List of historically influential people in anime is worse, since "historically influential" is even more POV-based than "notable". It isn't just the name, it's the entire concept of this list that is the problem. Crazysuit 20:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's not true. It's very easy to show who has been influential as you can reference articles stating that. This is the kind of thing that articles will often do when discussing the history of any particular subject: list those who have been influential in it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- List of historically influential people in anime is worse, since "historically influential" is even more POV-based than "notable". It isn't just the name, it's the entire concept of this list that is the problem. Crazysuit 20:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The list has a subjectively defined scope, therefore, it can't pass WP:OR. The intention of the list seems to be subjective so the scope cannot be redefined to be acceptable. Jay32183 18:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Let's assume for now that as wikipedia editors we can determine who is, or is not, notable in the field of anime. What, then, is the purpose of this article? Particularly notable names can be included in the main Anime article, and all names which meet notability criteria can have their own articles, which can be added to an appropriate category. I don't think that "List of notable X" in general makes a good class of article. Where is the reliable source stating that notability is notable? Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 21:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Without reliably-sourced and unambiguous statements of membership criteria, this does not pass WP:LIST. Cool Hand Luke 14:36, 4 September 2007 (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.
