Deletion of Sailor Moon (English adaptations)

Comment: Sailor Moon is a main anime of its genre and was an early title in the flood of anime series to enter Western markets since the mid-90's.  The article may contain fancruft, but that's a reason for '''clean-up''', not deletion. This article, as all articles, needs to be judged on its own merit-- the status and nature of other anime articles has nothing to do with this, more notable, topic.   I will respectfully disagree with this who call this topic un-encyclopedic. It meets .  There's a lot of crap in wikipedia. I've advocated for the deletion and merger of articles which essentially are nothing more than fan biographies and summaries of popular series as part of  re-development.  Sailor Moon was a pioneering series in terms of the western adoption of animation. There's a small body of literatures that deals with the marketing efforts of the producers and how the producers tried to cash in on the success of the series through marketing.  The most famous of this was an article by syndicated columnist Dave Barry.  There are also a small body scholarship outlining the failure of the show to achieve wide popularity in the US, despite strong showings elsewhere.  Intertwined with the marketing articles are the articles about sexuality and "girl power".  Here's a brief quick-and-dirty scan of the available sources for this article. I do not currently have the time to edit Wikipedia.  However if anyone who wants to help clean this article up would like me to help gain access to them for sourcing purposes, drop me a note on my talk page
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:FICT)

Comment: The consensus keep in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Editing of anime in American distribution suggests that, in general, articles about anime adaptations when there are contraversial changes can be encyclopedic in principle. There are serious editoral concerns with this article, especially with  and , but there's enough of the latter to show there ''is'' contraversy, if not to source the details. Together, these things make me inclined to a keep+|fixit, but I'm willing to listen to other arguments while I think about it some more
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:RS||WP:SOFIXIT)

Comment: as on the talk page. -AM states "Articles should be self-contained, only referring to subpages for additional information or details if the main article or a section becomes too long." Furthermore, under "Topics that can reasonably be included" in a main article, we find "issues arising from the transition from...one language to another (such as alterations to storylines, international voice actors, air dates or dates of publication
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:MOS)