Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nijisanji

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nijisanji[edit]

[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)

Fails WP:NCORP. Has all the appearance of a WP:COATRACK where I anticipate a push to fill out all the listed names with adverts for their channels. WP:ADMASQ with a substantial helping of WP:BOMBARD 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think it's an ad, it looks more like it was written by fans. That being said, many of the sources are to PR Times, which as you can probably guess from the name, is a website which publishes press releases. I haven't looked at the other sources, though, and there are quite a few of them, so it's possible that there are some good ones in there. Mlb96 (talk) 01:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify - An article should speak for itself and explain how the subject is notable, which is based on what third parties say about the company. This article is written from the viewpoint of the company, not from that of third parties, and does not establish corporate notability.
- In order to be ready for article space, two improvements are needed:
  - The article should state what reliable sources say about the agency.
  - The originator should identify not less than three nor more than five key references that can be checked. Neither the reviewing editors nor the readers should be expected to review the 26 references with which this article has been bombed.
- This article was declined in draft space but moved into article space anyway. It was not ready for article space, and can be moved back into draft space or deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 01:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Can't we just do a cleanup? Hololive has a page; it's only fair Nijisanji gets one. —ÐW-🇺🇦^(T·C) 18:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, there must be significant coverage of the subject in multiple independent reliable sources. The Hololive page has many such sources, and so is easily notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. While I have not looked at every source on the Nijisanji page, many of them are either routine announcements (and therefore do not contain significant coverage), or are press releases from the company (and therefore are not independent). Could you point to two or three independent reliable sources which you believe contain significant coverage of Nijisanji? Mlb96 (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My point still stands. —ÐW-🇺🇦^(T·C) 23:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't, actually, but I decided to look through the sources myself and there's enough there to justify keeping the page, as I explain below. Mlb96 (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I still refuse to change my opinion. —ÐW-🇺🇦^(T·C) 18:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I really didn't want to, but I looked through the sources in the article, and I think there are just barely enough. There is one very good source from Kai-You which is a review of one of Nijisanji's live concerts. While I've never heard of Kai-You, they seem to have solid journalistic practices that should qualify them as a reliable source. There is also a piece from Dengeki Online, which is a well-established media outlet, but I was having some trouble discerning if this piece was independent, as it contains some seemingly promotional language. However, I believe that this is simply a quirk of translation, as many phrases which would seem promotional in English are fixed expressions in Japanese (e.g., "please watch the video"). There is also an article from Crunchyroll about a controversy with which the group was involved. However, this piece focuses more on the other aspects of the controversy than on Nijisanji, so it's not quite as good as the aforementioned articles. Finally, there are two articles from MoguraVR which contain significant coverage, but I'm not convinced that this is a reliable source, so I largely discounted them. Overall, I would say this is enough to consider Nijisanji to be notable, but not by a very large margin. Mlb96 (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I will try to help with cleanup. However, most of the good sources are for the English branch primarily. Also, as previously mentioned not only Hololive but VShojo has a page which is a lot weaker than this one and has stayed untouched for some time now. Jotamide (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jotamide No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Mlb's analysis, and the sources used to support the Japanese language articles controversies section, which from a skim seem intellectually independent and meet NCORP guidelines. Jumpytoo Talk 07:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the articles already mentioned above, the one from A Little Bit Human is also a quality published source. Among other things, the source states that Nijsanji is not just one of the first VTuber agencies, but THE first VTuber agency (if I were an editor of this article, that would be one of the first things added to the lead, and frankly I am shocked that this has not been done yet). The source also notes that Nijisanji is the only major competitor to Hololive. This is echoed in a different source not currently included in the Wikipedia article from Slate here, which briefly describes Nijisanji as one of the two largest VTuber agencies along with Hololive. I highly recommend keeping the article, but efforts should be made to include more English-language sources and to not overlook highly notable facts like the one I mentioned. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 02:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify if some of the material will be used for a topic on the "movement" in general (and not the organization as it currently is) - otherwise Delete as the references fail NCORP and the organization does not meet our notability guideline. Its taken a while but I've now looked at every reference. There is *nothing* that provides in-depth information on the organization. In contrast, there's absolute tons of stuff on individual Nijisanji characters and their antics - but they're not the topic of this article. It is also notable that the reasoning provided by Mlb96 above highlights the "reliable sources" of each publication rather than commenting on whether the content contains "Independent Content" which is in-depth and about the *company*. Rather than provide an analysis of all 46 references, I'll comment instead on those references mentioned above in this AfD
- This from kai-you.net] does indeed discuss the Nijisanji festivals, providing the dates for each festival but provides nothing by way of information on the company. Fails CORPDEPTH.
- This from Dengeki Online] is primarily an article which introduces the reader to the world of VTubers and provides a profile for a number of Nijisanji characters. But it does not discuss the organization in any detail. There is also a copyright notice for Ichikara Inc (the owners) at the bottom of the article and it isn't clear whether it is referring to the article itself or something else. Regardless, reference fails CORPDEPTH
- This crunchyroll article discusses a Nijisanji playing a version of "Among Us". It provides no in-depth details about the organization, fails CORPDEPTH
- Both references from MoguLive fail to provide also - a common theme to the many references, both also fail CORPDEPTH

I'm happy to revisit my !vote if somebody wishes to point to a specific reference which contains in-depth information on the company but I'm unable to locate one, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. That said, there may be some scope for the article to change the topic away from the organization and focus instead on the "movement" or the characters, I believe there is sufficient material for such an article. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how an article based on the Nijisanji "movement" or characters would be much different from the article as is, certainly not different to the point where WP:TNT or drafication is necessary. Maybe remove some references to the organization behind it "AnyColor" but otherwise the article seems scoped good enough to the characters & the movement (a poor quality article yes, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP). Jumpytoo Talk 02:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the way I'm approaching this, if the article is about the organization (which this one is) and none of the references meet NCORP then the topic should be deleted - hence the Delete !vote. But reading through the refs, I get the impression that there might be enough to do an article about the characters and groups which wouldn't be the same article but would probably use some of the same content. So it isn't cleanup either, its a new topic. Perhaps a Delete isn't the correct !vote - but neither is Keep which would simply preserve this topic. Because there's a chance that this article would be re-used for a new topic (hence keeping the history) I'll change to Draftify/Delete on the basis the topic might be changed - but if the topic remains on the organization, then I'm firmly delete as the refs fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:43, 22 April 2022 (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.