Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of adult animated films

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 no consensus. I'm not seeing a consensus here but if this remains unfixed and is renominated later, its entirely possible that the next discussion could have a clearer outcome. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of adult animated films

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Page is basically entirely original research, with no definitions given of what it actually means, some films on the list disagree with what's on the parent page. Ged UK 10:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commnet This seems a rather wide scope, there is no distinction between adult and young adult. @Ged UK: You haven't provided any policy arguments for this AfD other than WP:OR, are you able to expand further why you feel this should go? Govvy (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean, OR is a pretty hefty policy, no? It's virtually unsourced (8 sources for a list of 100+ films), so it pretty well fails WP:RS too. Ged UK 19:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Errr, WTH? WP:NOR is one of the core content policies of the encyclopedia. Violation of NOR is a prima facie deletion ground, full stop. He doesn't have to proffer another deletion ground. Ravenswing 07:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can these issues be fixed through normal editing per WP:BEFORE?—TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Adult" in the context of "film" usually concerns sexual content, but the first entry on the list is Animal Farm. I think this should be WP:TNTd for WP:OR concerns. --Izno (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is there the collective will to bring this list into compliance with WP:LISTVERIFY by providing sources establishing the films as "adult" and deleting the entries for which sources can't (or won't) be provided...and maintain the list going forward? If so, then maybe this is salvageable; if not, then it probably should be deleted. In my experience, there are too many editors who are happy to create and add to list articles who then balk at having to provide citations. Alternately, they're ignorant of policy regarding such things. DonIago (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Izno is right that when "abult" is paired with film it means sexual, which at least some of these in no way are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article for Adult animation clearly explains the meaning of it has nothing to do with the American use of the word "adult" for pornographic things. Dream Focus 12:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Adult animated film" is vague and subject to multiple interpretations. Trivialist (talk) 00:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is clearly defined in the article for it. Dream Focus 12:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think I agree, the scope of the article feels wrong, I know plenty of adult type of animated films not on the list, WP:TNT per Inzo. Govvy (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You wish to destroy the article because its incomplete? See WP:NOTBUILT Dream Focus 12:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I feel the scope is too vague, not about completion. Govvy (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Adult animation has its own article. Category:Adult animated films exist as well. "Adult" does not have anything to do with how the American's use the term to refer to pornography, that clear for any who took a moment to look at the article defining it. Note that things released in Japan are clearly labeled as adult or young adult, both included in the definition here. Other things require sourcing. Dream Focus 12:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The definition given in Adult animation is clear, the list should by saved through adding sources, not deletion. Nardog (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Those who wish to do so have had four years. Demonstrably there's no desire to bother. Ravenswing 07:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 12:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a long article about adult animation on TIME and there seem to be other sources out there that recognise it as a genre. As cinema releases typically get age-ratings, there's plenty of objective evidence. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion per WP:IMPERFECT and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and other delete !votes above, and per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. We should not have lists of films by genres. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have quite a lot of list articles for film genres. Category:Lists of animated films and Category:Lists of films list a lot of them, as does the Category:Lists of films by genre. A lot of lists exist for other entertainment media by genre as well such as Category:Lists of musicians by genre. Having things listed by genre is quite common. Dream Focus 17:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have quite a lot of articles we shouldn't have, in part thanks to your volunteer work. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's no "shouldn't" applicable here, unless you have a specific argument against this particular list rather than the broad and uncontroversial category it belongs to. There is absolutely no guideline or policy that would preclude indexing our articles on films by the genre of those films. And it is quite clearly something we do pervasively and systematically, because we should and do list articles by what their subjects are. postdlf (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
absolutely no guideline or policy except the one I linked to in all caps. It's the same policy that says we shouldn't have an article about every film that's ever been reviewed. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except it does not say that at all.WP:NFILM suggests we should have an article for a film that has two national reviews, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the one that says “Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content”? This is a list of films that have articles. postdlf (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the one that continues, "However, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed." Look, disagree with me if you want to, but saying my disagreement isn't rooted in policy is simply not true. The entries on that list are, by and large, unsourced/poorly-sourced OR fancruft crap. That we have a ton of articles about non-notable adult animated films doesn't make the list indexing those articles a keeper. The list should go. Most of the articles should go, too. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dream Focus. The deletion !votes above all seem confused as to the intended scope or definition. Here we have a parent article and corresponding category (which, again, none of the !deletion voters address or demonstrate awareness of). postdlf (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, how about we go with -- drum roll please -- the actual grounds of the nomination? That the article is poorly named given the plurality of readers who would absolutely expect this to be about pornography is a content issue that is outside the scope of AfD. That this list consist entirely of original research, would any keep proponents care to address that? That fewer than one film out of thirty on this list is sourced at all (never mind sources that are reliable, independent and support the characterization of the film as "adult"), would any keep proponents care to address that? Honestly, I don't see a single valid ground to keep this article having been proffered: that there is an article on adult animation is nice, but has nothing to do with that THIS article is almost entirely unsourced and entirely consists of original research. (That aside, no, we should not keep this pending sourcing. That might be -- barely -- a valid concern for a new article, but this list article is nearly four years old. If no one is willing to put the effort into sourcing it, it should not be a Wikipedia article until someone is.) Ravenswing 07:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I admit that I stared at this for a long time. For some reason I kept thinking adult animated film: gutter... Anyway the list passes WP:LISTN as it aides in navigation and information. One editor has stated that we have a hurdle of determining whether the items are adult/young adult. - is easily overcome with editing. I also do not believe we have original research here...we have a list. Lightburst (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a list. The only one legitimate concern if there are clear criteria to distinguish "adult" animated movies from ones directed at kids. However, this is generally not a problem because the target audience is usually officially announced during release of the movie and even before. My very best wishes (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lightburst. Maybe thrash out the definitions/inclusion on the talkpage too? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paradigmatic keep and cleanup instance. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Here's the thing. Lists of films in a genre are absolutely and unambiguously acceptable stand-alone articles. In fact, I'd dare say that if there are enough sources to have an article about a genre, it's quite likely that we can sustain a list (even a navigational list) of films in that genre. But this isn't about a genre; it's about an audience. That's a much slipperier distinction to source. Is it about intention? With whom it was popular? Marketing? Subject matter? There's nothing consistent here except for "geared towards adults" and even then the main article adds "or adolescents" (?!). Sometimes a film is explicitly made for children or for adults, but most of the time (especially these days) it's blurry, and it also changes over time. I ultimately don't have faith that this can work per WP:SALAT. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its perfectly ok to have a list of something notable this way, animated films aimed only at adults are rare and thus the topic itself has become notable due to coverage of the phenomenon when it does happen.★Trekker (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'll tackle the deletion rationales point by point.
- 1) The OR claim in the nom isn't a reason to delete. The list may contain some OR, but the subject isn't.
- 2) The term in only vague to readers who don't know what it means. The first sentence of the list links to the main article, which clearly defines the term.
- 3) Declaring this to be a sexual term is regional and obtuse. Many less-popular mediums/genre/whatever get stuck with inappropriate names. Funny animals aren't always funny. Comic books aren't always comical. Animation got a reputation for being a children's medium, hence the "adult" qualifier for works like South Park. !Voter ignorance of this subject is not a reason to !vote delete.
- 4) I don't know which of the specific categories of WP:NOTCATALOGUE User:Levivich thinks this falls into, but I don't think it fits any of them. I guess an argument could be made for number six, but it's not a strong one.
- 5) A lack of sources for isn't grounds for deletion unless someone wants to show that sources don't exist for all these blue linked films, because AfD isn't clean up.
- 6) The fact it's been short on sources for four years isn't grounds a reason to delete either. There's no deadline, and AfD isn't clean up.
- 7) User:Rhododendrites is correct this isn't a genre, but it is a distinct type of film, just like List of short live-action films, List of stop motion films, or List of black-and-white films produced since 1970. There are sources on this type of film, there are fans of this type of film, and those fans could use a navigational list. I believe that's enough justification to keep it. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2020 (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.