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 delete. While the !vote count is close, there has not been any rebuttal to the final string of delete !votes providing assessment of the available depth of coverage which tips this discussion further toward deletion. signed, Rosguilltalk 02:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Content is limited to a self-description of what is in their youtube channel. North8000 (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GLOBAL and WP:NOENG. We're talking about a channel with 2.7 million subscribers [1] which regularly gets coverage in various Japanese outlets [2] and according to this source, is #1 in Japan by some rankings [3]. DCsansei (talk) 11:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found a decent source about the subject, Nikkan Spa [ja][4]. There's also Cyzo [ja][5] with News Post Seven [ja][6]. Passes WP:GNG, and that's before we start adding coverage of the media spin-offs and adaptations...Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Struck/reworded my comment per Sirfurboy's arguments below. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The "Maizen Sisters" article should stay on Wikipedia because they are influential YouTubers who have made a significant impact in the online and Minecraft communities. Their work combines entertainment with charity, as they have made notable donations to important causes. This blend of digital influence and philanthropy makes their story both educational and inspiring, and worthy of being keep.--Loewstisch (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should stay, yes. But we need decent sourcing that talks about them, that's the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Leaning delete because at this point, there is no evidence this meets WP:GNG. I'll wait a little longer to see if anyone can find significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Arguments that we should keep becaise its a popular channel are spurious. We need SIGCOV. Where is Matt provides one reference. This is a list of the three most watched channels in 2021, but the coverage of Maizen sisters is trivial. It says there is a channel lots of people watch and very little else. It might hint at signiifcance coming. If that popularity were sustained and it were noticed and covered and discussed in secondary sources, that would be fine. For the avoidance of doubt, the source provided here is primary. It is contemporary reporting in the manner of an eyewitness account. This is the popular channel, it says. That is all. This comment also applies to the sources provided by Jovanmilic97 from what I can see (I don't speak Japanese and used Google translate, but it certainly appears that these are primary sources). Primary sources do not count towards notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, the sources provided by @Jovanmilic97 are not primary sources as evidenced by the links to the Japanese Wikipedia articles he provides. DCsansei (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a good argument. Wikipedia content is user generated. Perhaps Japanese Wikipedia assessed the sources as secondary, or perhaps they didn't think of it or perhaps they have different sourcing requirements or... But these look like primary sources to me. Why do you think they are not? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow your argument. As Wikipedia says: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." What makes you think these sources are close and/or directly involved with Maizen Sisters? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So the first thing to note is that these appear to be news sources. For instance, the first one, according to Google, is Nikkan Saizo : The latest news on TV, entertainment, comedy, and society. So the relevant guideline is WP:PRIMARYNEWS. This is a point that is often missed. News sources are usually primary sources. This first source starts off with: The YouTuber duo Maizen Sisters (Zenichi & Micky) boasting 2.72 million channel subscribers. On January 19, it was announced on the official Twitter that they would be looking for new voice actors, causing a stir. The translation looks a touch iffy there, but the sense is clear. The article tells the news audience who they are and provides news - they said something on Twitter and it caused a stir. This is a primary source. Note that per PRIMARYNEWS, it doesn't matter whether you dice this as a report on events, a human interest story or even an editorial, this still falls firmly within the primary source territory. This should not be a great surprise. These kinds of source are nearly always primary. It is not just Wikipedia consensus saying so - this is how academics will treat them. They can still be reliable and independent, but they are primary. Primary sources do not count towards subject notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, after reading your post, I actually tend to agree (and thank you for WP:PRIMARYNEWS). Cyzo/Saizo is the source I was the least confident on, because it was essentially just a report on the announcement and I will strike that one above. After reading everything more in detail, Nikkan Spa is the one that's probably (by far) the one I'm the most confident in and I believe it should count towards WP:GNG. News Post Seven seems to be also along the vibes of Cyzo, so I'll be turning my vote to Neutral for now. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One side note....the core issue isn't primary sources, it's lack of GNG sources. North8000 (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although sources being primary is one key reason why sources would not meet GNG. Trivial mentions, non independent sources, non reliable sources or primary sources all would be disregarded. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very true. North8000 (talk) 12:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: More consideration of GNG/notability would be preferable in determining consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Replying to last comment from before the relisting:) I would note that WP:PRIMARYNEWS is just an essay and "is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community" although I agree that a news report is generally a primary source. The actual Wikipedia guideline on the topic, WP:PRIMARY, does specify that "for Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources." That statement (from the policy, not an essay) inherently implies that a news story which is not a breaking news story would not necessarily be considered a primary source. I would argue that the Nikkan Spa article found by @Jovanmilic97 crosses the line from primary to secondary since, as WP:SECONDARY requires, it is "at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources". The article is providing analysis of why the channel is popular. It's not a breaking news story and therefore counts as secondary coverage. Similar analysis can be done on some of the other sources mentioning the まいぜんシスターズ. DCsansei (talk) 09:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PRIMARYNEWS is part of an explanatory essay, yes, but the policy does include this too, no need to read between the lines. See especially note d of WP:PRIMARY which includes, inter alia, Primary sources may include newspaper articles, [etc.]. But again, it is not just Wikipedia saying this. News coverage is a primary source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really want to get into a prolonged back and forth here, but the full quote is "A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Primary sources may include newspaper articles, letters, diaries, interviews, laws, reports of government commissions, and many other types of documents." In other words, as I said, a newspaper article or breaking news story that covers something in real time and provides "a first-hand account of an event" is a primary source. An article appearing in a newspaper (or digital equivalent) that is describing a trend and providing "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas" is a secondary source. The distinction between primary and secondary is not "if newspaper = primary". DCsansei (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your "in other words" does not follow. A newspaper article is a contemporary account whether it is a breaking news story or a description of a YouTuber duo who announced on Twitter that they would be looking for new voice actors, or any of the other things discussed in PRIMARYNEWS. Newspapers are generally primary sources, and if you want to know what that generally means, it is in PRIMARYNEWS. It is not just Wikipedia policy, as I say. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs cleanup, but that's not the topic of this discussion. A quick search indicates that this channel gets a ton of coverage in Japanese sources, and while I can't vouch for the reliability of all those sources, I likewise haven't seen evidence that the sources are unreliable. Cortador (talk) 09:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The relisting comment asks for more consideration of GNG/notability. The existence of coverage which may or may not be reliable is a given. What we need to know is whether that coverage is in secondary sources that are independent and reliable, and that coverage is significant. Specifically we need to show that multiple secondary sources meet the bar. That has not been done yet. Could you take a bit more than a "quick search" and indicate which sources you have found that might meet these criteria? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Source 3 is a press release, 15 and 16 are trivial mentions (but they're all green per source tool). Rest appear to be plot summaries or one-line mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sourcing from .jp websites is mostly commercial sites, selling merchandise. They seem to be heavily marketed. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per no reliable sources as pointed out above. बिनोद थारू (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have written a fair bit on this AfD but did not register a !vote in the hope secondary sources would be found. I can't find any, but I don't speak Japanese. All the same, on the evidence presented and per Oaktree's analysis too, I am confirming my delete !vote here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: On Wikipedia, news sources are generally considered to be secondary sources, that can count toward GNG if they are reliable and contain intellectually independent content. An analysis of whether the Japanese sources meet these criteria would be very helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am going to take issue with the relist comment that Wikipedia generally treats news sources as secondary. The policy is discussed above, and that is clear that generally (but not without exception) these are primary. Also relevant is WP:NOTNEWS which says (point 2) Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage. I note that this may be talking more about the events than the bios, but the argument remains. Sustained news coverage over a period may well be an indicator of notability, however, per WP:SUSTAINED. An example of that would be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Lodge Girls' College, where I yesterday based my keep vote on the extent of the coverage (100 years in that case, but that might be excessive!), despite all the sources being newspapers. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW - The policy you cite For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage. and WP:ROUTINE specifically calling out that routine news coverage does not contribute to notability threshold inherently implies that other articles would. DCsansei (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2024 (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.