1152:- 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
1000:(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
846:
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
411:
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
630:
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
991:
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
923:
You mean the one that says “Knowledge encompasses many lists of links to articles within
Knowledge that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Knowledge functions as an index or directory of its own content”? This is a list of films that have articles.
1045:. 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.
942:
Yeah, the one that continues, "However, Knowledge 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,
1004:
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
Knowledge article until someone is.)
1027:
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.
969:
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).
201:
943:
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.
747:
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
1173:
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.
1111:
195:
1258:. 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.
1255:
154:
127:
122:
52:. 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.
131:
232:
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.
706:
114:
600:
1200:
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.
255:
101:
161:
86:
443:
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.
412:
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.
868:
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.
1235:
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.
1225:
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.
1203:
3) Declaring this to be a sexual term is regional and obtuse. Many less-popular mediums/genre/whatever get stuck with inappropriate names.
801:
216:
1211:. Comic books aren't always comical. Animation got a reputation for being a children's medium, hence the "adult" qualifier for works like
183:
847:
it is quite clearly something we do pervasively and systematically, because we should and do list articles by what their subjects are.
1023:
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
118:
797:
789:
304:
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
81:
74:
17:
1267:
1182:
1165:
1144:
1123:
1102:
1084:
1054:
1037:
1015:
983:
949:
937:
904:
874:
860:
841:
827:
783:
765:
732:
697:
675:
654:
612:
589:
567:
536:
513:
485:
466:
438:
421:
399:
373:
350:
323:
299:
267:
247:
177:
56:
1050:
627:
173:
110:
62:
523:
I think I agree, the scope of the article feels wrong, I know plenty of adult type of animated films not on the list,
95:
91:
1247:
996:, would any keep proponents care to address that? That fewer than one film out of thirty on this list is sourced at
223:
1063:
1286:
1251:
761:
434:
40:
429:
Izno is right that when "abult" is paired with film it means sexual, which at least some of these in no way are.
1263:
1046:
369:
793:
608:
1219:
774:
189:
1282:
1140:
900:
36:
1033:
1006:
757:
753:
688:
481:
430:
408:
378:"Adult" in the context of "film" usually concerns sexual content, but the first entry on the list is
341:
1259:
1239:
1158:
1119:
749:
365:
209:
604:
542:
1228:
5) A lack of sources for isn't grounds for deletion unless someone wants to show that sources
1178:
978:
932:
855:
417:
70:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1281:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1136:
896:
805:
710:
671:
632:
545:
491:
444:
361:
314:
238:
1194:
1153:
1029:
1024:
892:
663:
623:
585:
532:
477:
295:
263:
687:
Those who wish to do so have had four years. Demonstrably there's no desire to bother.
1193:
1) The OR claim in the nom isn't a reason to delete. The list may contain some OR, but
1115:
1075:
744:
395:
278:
This seems a rather wide scope, there is no distinction between adult and young adult.
1222:
993:
945:
870:
837:
832:
779:
524:
383:
329:
1204:
1174:
1096:
972:
926:
849:
413:
387:
305:
287:
53:
148:
895:
suggests we should have an article for a film that has two national reviews, imv
1094:
per
Lightburst. Maybe thrash out the definitions/inclusion on the talkpage too?
667:
309:
281:
233:
800:. A lot of lists exist for other entertainment media by genre as well such as
1212:
581:
528:
291:
259:
391:
476:: "Adult animated film" is vague and subject to multiple interpretations.
336:
Violation of NOR is a prima facie deletion ground, full stop. He doesn't
705:
Note: This discussion has been included in the
Article Rescue Squadron's
666:
is clear, the list should by saved through adding sources, not deletion.
407:
Is there the collective will to bring this list into compliance with
1215:. !Voter ignorance of this subject is not a reason to !vote delete.
286:
You haven't provided any policy arguments for this AfD other than
1208:
1277:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
290:, are you able to expand further why you feel this should go?
1066:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
541:
You wish to destroy the article because its incomplete? See
1232:
for all these blue linked films, because AfD isn't clean up.
580:
Nope, I feel the scope is too vague, not about completion.
1112:
list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions
144:
140:
136:
1190:- I'll tackle the deletion rationales point by point.
788:
We have quite a lot of list articles for film genres.
208:
360:
Can these issues be fixed through normal editing per
1218:
4) I don't know which of the specific categories of
1072:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
804:. Having things listed by genre is quite common.
1256:List of black-and-white films produced since 1970
833:We have quite a lot of articles we shouldn't have
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1289:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1110:Note: This discussion has been included in the
743:There's a long article about adult animation on
599:Note: This discussion has been included in the
254:Note: This discussion has been included in the
777:. We should not have lists of films by genres.
773:per nom and other delete !votes above, and per
490:It is clearly defined in the article for it.
222:
8:
102:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
1109:
704:
601:list of Lists-related deletion discussions
598:
334:core content policies of the encyclopedia.
253:
835:, in part thanks to your volunteer work.
256:list of Film-related deletion discussions
707:list of content for rescue consideration
1242:is correct this isn't a genre, but it
865:
631:here. Other things require sourcing.
7:
802:Category:Lists of musicians by genre
340:to proffer another deletion ground.
1246:a distinct type of film, just like
891:Except it does not say that at all.
24:
866:absolutely no guideline or policy
798:Category:Lists of films by genre
796:list a lot of them, as does the
790:Category:Lists of animated films
87:Introduction to deletion process
1248:List of short live-action films
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
628:Category:Adult animated films
111:List of adult animated films
63:List of adult animated films
77:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1306:
1268:13:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
1252:List of stop motion films
1183:16:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
1166:19:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
1145:22:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
1124:17:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
1103:13:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
1085:10:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
1055:15:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
1038:14:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
1016:07:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
984:00:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
950:16:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
938:16:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
905:21:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
875:03:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
861:00:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
842:17:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
828:17:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
784:16:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
766:14:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
733:12:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
698:07:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
676:12:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
655:12:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
613:06:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
590:14:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
568:12:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
537:08:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
514:12:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
486:00:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
467:12:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
439:18:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
422:17:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
400:14:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
382:. I think this should be
374:12:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
351:07:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
324:19:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
300:11:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
268:11:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
248:10:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
57:06:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
1279:Please do not modify it.
662:The definition given in
32:Please do not modify it.
794:Category:Lists of films
626:has its own article.
75:Articles for deletion
1240:User:Rhododendrites
1047:My very best wishes
1126:
1087:
1083:
994:original research
735:
615:
431:John Pack Lambert
270:
92:Guide to deletion
82:How to contribute
1297:
1163:
1161:
1133:keep and cleanup
1099:
1082:
1080:
1073:
1071:
1069:
1067:
1012:
948:
873:
840:
824:
821:
818:
815:
812:
809:
782:
729:
726:
723:
720:
717:
714:
694:
651:
648:
645:
642:
639:
636:
564:
561:
558:
555:
552:
549:
510:
507:
504:
501:
498:
495:
463:
460:
457:
454:
451:
448:
347:
321:
312:
285:
245:
236:
227:
226:
212:
164:
152:
134:
72:
34:
1305:
1304:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1287:deletion review
1220:WP:NOTCATALOGUE
1159:
1157:
1097:
1088:
1076:
1074:
1062:
1060:
1008:
944:
869:
836:
822:
819:
816:
813:
810:
807:
778:
775:WP:NOTCATALOGUE
727:
724:
721:
718:
715:
712:
690:
664:Adult animation
649:
646:
643:
640:
637:
634:
624:Adult animation
562:
559:
556:
553:
550:
547:
508:
505:
502:
499:
496:
493:
461:
458:
455:
452:
449:
446:
343:
315:
310:
279:
239:
234:
169:
160:
125:
109:
106:
69:
66:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1303:
1301:
1292:
1291:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1260:Argento Surfer
1236:
1233:
1226:
1216:
1207:aren't always
1201:
1198:
1185:
1168:
1160:Rhododendrites
1147:
1128:
1127:
1106:
1105:
1070:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1040:
1018:
986:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
954:
953:
952:
910:
909:
908:
907:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
768:
737:
736:
702:
701:
700:
679:
678:
657:
617:
616:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
573:
572:
571:
570:
518:
517:
516:
471:
470:
469:
424:
402:
376:
366:TriiipleThreat
355:
354:
353:
332:is one of the
326:
272:
271:
230:
229:
166:
105:
104:
99:
89:
84:
67:
65:
60:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1302:
1290:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1275:
1274:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1253:
1249:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1234:
1231:
1227:
1224:
1223:User:Levivich
1221:
1217:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1205:Funny animals
1202:
1199:
1196:
1192:
1191:
1189:
1186:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1172:
1169:
1167:
1162:
1155:
1151:
1148:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1131:Paradigmatic
1130:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1108:
1107:
1104:
1101:
1100:
1093:
1090:
1089:
1086:
1081:
1079:
1068:
1065:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1041:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1026:
1022:
1019:
1017:
1014:
1013:
1011:
1003:
999:
995:
990:
987:
985:
981:
980:
975:
974:
968:
965:
951:
947:
941:
940:
939:
935:
934:
929:
928:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
914:
913:
912:
911:
906:
902:
898:
894:
890:
889:
888:
887:
876:
872:
867:
864:
863:
862:
858:
857:
852:
851:
845:
844:
843:
839:
834:
831:
830:
829:
826:
825:
803:
799:
795:
791:
787:
786:
785:
781:
776:
772:
769:
767:
763:
759:
755:
754:WP:NOTCLEANUP
751:
746:
742:
739:
738:
734:
731:
730:
708:
703:
699:
696:
695:
693:
686:
683:
682:
681:
680:
677:
673:
669:
665:
661:
658:
656:
653:
652:
629:
625:
622:
619:
618:
614:
610:
606:
605:Coolabahapple
602:
597:
591:
587:
583:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
569:
566:
565:
544:
540:
539:
538:
534:
530:
526:
522:
519:
515:
512:
511:
489:
488:
487:
483:
479:
475:
472:
468:
465:
464:
442:
441:
440:
436:
432:
428:
425:
423:
419:
415:
410:
409:WP:LISTVERIFY
406:
403:
401:
397:
393:
389:
385:
381:
377:
375:
371:
367:
363:
359:
356:
352:
349:
348:
346:
339:
335:
331:
327:
325:
322:
320:
319:
313:
307:
303:
302:
301:
297:
293:
289:
283:
277:
274:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
252:
251:
250:
249:
246:
244:
243:
237:
225:
221:
218:
215:
211:
207:
203:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
175:
172:
171:Find sources:
167:
163:
159:
156:
150:
146:
142:
138:
133:
129:
124:
120:
116:
112:
108:
107:
103:
100:
97:
93:
90:
88:
85:
83:
80:
79:
78:
76:
71:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1278:
1276:
1243:
1229:
1187:
1170:
1149:
1132:
1095:
1091:
1077:
1061:
1042:
1020:
1009:
1007:
1001:
997:
988:
977:
971:
966:
931:
925:
854:
848:
806:
770:
750:WP:IMPERFECT
740:
711:
691:
689:
684:
659:
633:
620:
546:
520:
492:
473:
445:
426:
404:
390:concerns. --
379:
357:
344:
342:
337:
333:
328:Errr, WTH?
317:
316:
275:
241:
240:
231:
219:
213:
205:
198:
192:
186:
180:
170:
157:
68:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
1230:don't exist
1195:the subject
1137:Hyperbolick
1010:Ravenswing
897:Atlantic306
692:Ravenswing
543:WP:NOTBUILT
380:Animal Farm
345:Ravenswing
196:free images
1213:South Park
1135:instance.
1078:Sandstein
1030:Lightburst
527:per Inzo.
478:Trivialist
1283:talk page
1116:Toughpigs
362:WP:BEFORE
37:talk page
1285:or in a
1175:★Trekker
1154:WP:SALAT
1064:Relisted
1025:WP:LISTN
946:Levivich
893:WP:NFILM
871:Levivich
838:Levivich
780:Levivich
685:Comment:
405:Comment:
358:Comment:
155:View log
96:glossary
39:or in a
1098:Lugnuts
989:Delete:
973:postdlf
927:postdlf
850:postdlf
414:DonIago
384:WP:TNTd
276:Commnet
202:WP refs
190:scholar
128:protect
123:history
73:New to
54:Spartaz
1197:isn't.
1150:Delete
771:Delete
758:Andrew
668:Nardog
525:WP:TNT
521:Delete
474:Delete
427:Delete
330:WP:NOR
282:Ged UK
174:Google
132:delete
1254:, or
1209:funny
823:Focus
728:Focus
650:Focus
582:Govvy
563:Focus
529:Govvy
509:Focus
462:Focus
388:WP:OR
308:too.
306:WP:RS
292:Govvy
288:WP:OR
260:Govvy
217:JSTOR
178:books
162:Stats
149:views
141:watch
137:links
16:<
1264:talk
1188:Keep
1179:talk
1171:Keep
1156:. —
1141:talk
1120:talk
1092:Keep
1051:talk
1043:Keep
1034:talk
1021:Keep
979:talk
967:Keep
933:talk
901:talk
856:talk
792:and
762:talk
752:and
745:TIME
741:Keep
672:talk
660:Keep
621:KEEP
609:talk
586:talk
533:talk
482:talk
435:talk
418:talk
396:talk
392:Izno
386:for
370:talk
338:have
296:talk
264:talk
210:FENS
184:news
145:logs
119:talk
115:edit
1238:7)
1164:\\
1002:not
998:all
760:🐉(
311:Ged
235:Ged
224:TWL
153:– (
1266:)
1250:,
1244:is
1181:)
1143:)
1122:)
1114:.
1053:)
1036:)
982:)
936:)
903:)
859:)
764:)
756:.
709:.
674:)
611:)
603:.
588:)
535:)
484:)
437:)
420:)
398:)
372:)
364:?—
318:UK
298:)
266:)
258:.
242:UK
204:)
147:|
143:|
139:|
135:|
130:|
126:|
121:|
117:|
1262:(
1177:(
1139:(
1118:(
1049:(
1032:(
976:(
930:(
899:(
853:(
820:m
817:a
814:e
811:r
808:D
725:m
722:a
719:e
716:r
713:D
670:(
647:m
644:a
641:e
638:r
635:D
607:(
584:(
560:m
557:a
554:e
551:r
548:D
531:(
506:m
503:a
500:e
497:r
494:D
480:(
459:m
456:a
453:e
450:r
447:D
433:(
416:(
394:(
368:(
294:(
284::
280:@
262:(
228:)
220:·
214:·
206:·
199:·
193:·
187:·
181:·
176:(
168:(
165:)
158:·
151:)
113:(
98:)
94:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.