Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children's anime and manga

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, leaning towards "keep" due to the sources provided by Calathan. I suggest that per those sources the article should be changed to be specifically about children's anime and manga in Japan, and that there should be further discussion about the possibility of renaming. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Children's anime and manga

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

This article serves no conceivable purpose and contains nothing of value. JoshuSasori (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly kind of frustrated the article is associated with me. Anyone who actually bothers to look at how the article began will realize the entire article was co-opted at one point and the original intent is no longer there. Thanks for trying to include me in the discussion here, but I have absolutely nothing to do with the article in its present state. I will say that I think you should have a better argument than your opinion for just deleting the article. I believe in presenting some kind of reasoning behind your opinions and evidence if possible. I'm neutral in this discussion, because, as I said, I have nothing to do with the article in its present state. Best wishes. --Xaliqen (talk) 06:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The notification on your talk page was added automatically by Twinkle because you are the creator of the article. JoshuSasori (talk) 07:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was probably the case. I did feel obligated to respond, and I think the article can probably be saved if some work goes into it. Best wishes. --Xaliqen (talk) 03:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)03:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Japanese wiki has a much longer article, summarizing the shōnen and shōjo articles and adding some extra stuff about kindergarten anime and suchlike. So there is a conceivable purpose this article could serve, it just needs expanding. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The wikilinked Japanese article, which is solely about animation, is marked with the Japanese equivalent of the "original research" template tag and the "overly detailed" template tag. These tags have been in place on the article for three years. So, unfortunately, the length of the Japanese article proves nothing. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into children's literature which covers the topic globally. Warden (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/~~Rename~~ - First, I don't think the nominator has given a valid reason for deletion. Why don't you think the article has any conceivable purpose . . . isn't the purpose obviously to describe anime and manga aimed at children? Anyway, I think this article has become confusing due to the translation of "kodomo" to "children". I think the term "kodomo", as it relates to manga, is normally used to refer to manga aimed at younger children than what most manga in the shōnen and shōjo demographics are aimed at. That is certainly how we are using the related category here, and the description in the article as them being particularly moralistic applies more to manga aimed at young children. Alternatively, "kodomo" might overlap with the shōnen and shōjo demographics to some degree (i.e. be the portions of those demographics that are aimed at the youngest children). If I remember correctly, this article was renamed while the articles on other manga demographics like shōnen were left at their Japanese names because the other terms like "shōnen" were widely used in English sources, while the term "kodomo" was not. However, that completely missed that the translation changed the meaning of the article title. I think the article should be renamed back to using "Kodomo" instead of "Children's". This is all assuming that the "kodomo" demographic category is notable. I think it probably is, but someone should certainly add some sources to the article. Do any of the articles in other languages (there looks to be about 25 of them) have useful sources? Calathan (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, it's original research? JoshuSasori (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking me, or are you suggesting that you think that is original research? I don't think it is original research, but I don't want to take the time to look for sources myself. I can't read Japanese, and Google Translate doesn't do a very good job with Japanese. Calathan (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix up The article needs work in the way of sources but I see potential in it as it describes a big genre given the age group involved. As for a name change that should be a seperate discussion on the project talkpage or the talk page of the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge if in fact such thing exists in the anime and manga world, then merge with manga article --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 03:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 02:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the assumption that articles are not supposed to be deleted simply because they are currently under-developed, I would say keep. This seems a perfectly valid and useful topic for an article, notwithstanding any renaming and article reorganisation that might be desirable. However, if articles are supposed to deleted for being under-developed even when they have potential, then ignore this vote. 86.128.3.46 (talk) 02:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"currently under-developed" & "renaming and article reorganisation" sounds like a candidate for incubation/userfication to me, because with all that work needing to be done, its obviously not ready for prime time. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 19:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - because this Article is utter junk, all its saying is that words exists in another language. As noted above, even the Japanese Article about the topic is teetering on the edge of extinction. To Editors saying "it can be saved", userfication! ... any volunteers? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 19:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain I'm going to abstain from voting here, partially because of reasons I mentioned above. I will say, however, that anyone arguing either to keep the article, merge it or delete it should have at least one solid reason for doing so based on evidence beyond a personal opinion. I don't think keeping or removing articles based solely on the opinions of editors is a good precedent. It looks like one question some of the editors honed in on centers around the legitimacy of the material. If you're an editor looking to keep this article, I'd suggest finding the necessary evidence to argue the material is legitimate. Conversely, those who feel the material is illegitimate should provide some kind of evidence backing up their claim. Best wishes to everyone. --Xaliqen (talk) 07:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a collection of unsourced WP:Original research. --DAJF (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Despite my suggestion above that I didn't want to look for sources, now that it is a long weekend, I'm trying to expand and source the artile. I'm also changing my !vote from "Rename" to Keep, as I haven't found sources that would support my position of renaming the article (though I do want to note that the equivalent articles in many other languages' Wikipedias use "Kodomo" rather than their own language's word for children). One reason I think the article should be kept is that the Shogakukan Manga Award and Kodansha Manga Award, major Japanese manga awards, both include a Children's category as a separate category from shōnen and shōjo. This suggests that the major publishers of manga view Children's manga as a distinct and significant category of manga. Another reason I think the article should be kept is that the The Anime Encylopedia includes an article on children's anime (under the title "Kid's Anime"), and Manga: The Complete Guide appears to include an article on Children's manga (I own a copy of the Anime Encyclopedia, but I'm going based on Google's preview for Manga: The Complete Guide). I think articles in two specialty encyclopedias is enough to satisfy the notability guidelines on the subject. Furthermore, Wikipedia includes topics that are included in specialized encyclopedias (per Wikipedia:Five pillars), so I think the inclusion of the subject in specialty encyclopedias is a good reason to include it here. I still think that it would really help the article is someone else can try to find more sources (I can't read Japanese, and the only print anime/manga reference I have is the Anime Encyclopedia). Calathan (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seeing the popular things created for children in different cultures, helps understand those cultures better. You can rename it to Japanese moralistic media directed to children, or just use the Japanese name or literal translation for it. Calathan makes a great case, this is a category notable awards acknowledge, and the media creations themselves put themselves in this category. Dream Focus 15:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a move to Children's comics in Japan or something similar, if we're going to go that route. The current title seems overbroad, in my opinion, and already tangentially covered in the general Children's literature article. Focusing specifically on the market of comics intended for children in Japan seems a way to narrow the scope and still have plenty to work with. --Xaliqen (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm strongly opposed to the name suggested by Dream Focus. Not all children's anime and manga is moralistic, and I think that title significantly changes the focus of the article. I'm also (less strongly) opposed to the name suggested by Xaliqen, as I think it also changes the focus of the article. I think keeping "anime and manga" in the title makes clear that it is about cartoons and comics originating in Japan (i.e. not foreign media being shown to children in Japan). Calathan (talk)

The one issue with Children's comics in Japan is that it would necessitate an article at Children's comics. But there is no article there as it redirects to Comics. Children's manga would be better. Then it would then be a child article of Manga. Also, the article's primary focus is on children's manga with children's anime getting a very brief mention. —Farix (t | c) 01:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do the Japanese have a different name for children's comics of different types? The article says "These works are noted for stories that are often very moralistic, teaching children how to behave as good and considerate people and helping them to stay on the right path in life." Do all comics and animation targeted towards children get grouped together in one children's category, or do they have a different category for the ones that are moralistic? Dream Focus 07:40, 8 September 2012 (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.