Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dance Pop Girls


 * 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. General consensus seems to be that ZakZak is either unreliable or shaky at best. With no further reliable sources the general consensus seems to lean towards deletion. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Dance Pop Girls

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Unless there is something in Japanese I can not find, does not appear to be notable. Prod removed by original editor.  DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have been able to find a number of articles on ZakZak: here, here and here. ZakZak is a web information site owned by Sankei, one of the major news and media conglomerates, but I am not sure if all the articles there fulfill the requirements of independent RS. What concerns me is that DPG does not have anything on Oricon, which means they've never charted or had TV appearances of note, and that the group seems to be on hiatus. I tend to think that a group that has only had two singles, neither of which has charted, and that may never have another single, does not deserve a Wikipedia page. Michitaro (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral for now, but leaning to delete pending confirmation of ZakZak as a reliable source. Comment - My search fails to find enough reliable coverage in either English or Japanese, just sites that list their music. The fact that none of their music ever charted doesn't help either. Unless ZakZak is determined to be a reliable source, I just can't see this group having an article. I like a number of J-POP groups and duos, and I know how hard it can be to write articles for them without reliable sources, but unfortunately this is the case for Dance Pop Girls. If ZakZak is confirmed to be reliable, I'll change my !vote to keep. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC
 * Changing !vote. My !vote and explanation is below. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. The group doesn't appear to have a Japanese Wikipedia article. So much for notability. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I did a little more research on ZakZak. Basically, it is the web version of Yukan Fuji, the evening tabloid published by Sankei. As a tabloid it contains a lot of fluff articles and articles based on PR, but it is a more serious news outlet that American tabloids like the National Enquirer (for instance, it contains a lot of political analysis, albeit from a right wing perspective). I would tend to say as a whole that it is a RS, although its entertainment articles may be colored with PR. Michitaro (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So does that mean, in this particular case, ZakZak cannot be a reliable source? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Entertainment articles may be colored with PR, but I have no evidence that they all are or that these ones are. Also, since this PR coloring is not unique to ZakZak, but is the case with all but the most serious news sources, if we were to reject ZakZak, we'd have to reject the majority of news sources. That would require more discussion. Michitaro (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep per multiple coverage on ZakZak. Further coverage from other sources would be nice, this is the reason of the "Weak", but I personally have no problem with the reliability of this source. Cavarrone (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Even if we accept ZakZak as a RS, my main qualm is that this group is on hiatus, and has been so since November. There is a possibility it will never do anything else. In this case, perhaps WP:NTEMP applies. The guidelines do say that "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage", but "if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual". While there is no "event" here, the coverage is weak and all from a 7-month period at that. Michitaro (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. As this point, although ZakZak does appear to be reliable, that's about it, and it appears that ZakZak should only be used as a source with discretion. For me, being an inactive group doesn't necessarily mean that the group has only temporary notability (here is another example of an inactive group). My problem is simply that, apart from ZakZak, there really aren't any reliable sources that would establish any form of notability, whether short term or long term. Of course, additional sources are always welcomed, but since they're hard to find, at this point at least, I don't think Dance Pop Girls is notable. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I think it will be against the basic Wikipedia notability principle to delete the article. Their activity was repeatedly covered by a reliable source. Now, when the group ceased to exist and they deleted their Twitters, the Wikipedia article must live forever. Oricon doesn't list everything, I've seen singles not linked to a profile in their charts even. And one Twitter is stll there: . -Moscowconnection (talk) 09:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It was covered by a reliable source, not reliable sources. Even if they are inactive, if there are no other reliable sources, their Wikipedia article should probably not survive. The more it needs more reliable sources, since it's about long-term notability. I would have reconsidered if there was anything on Oricon, but there isn't. The fact that the group doesn't even seem to have a Japanese Wikipedia article doesn't help much either. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It wasn't deleted from the Japanese Wikipedia or anything. So, no one created a page... For example, E-Girls didn't have a Japanese page until recently. And I've found the group's official YouTube channel: . Not very popular. --Moscowconnection (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, unfortunately. (1) There is only one third-party source, and a rather borderline one. (2) Usually, music groups based in Japan receive a wider coverage on the Japanese Wikipedia, but no such article existed there, so I can only conclude that it is unlikely there are sufficient additional reliable sources, be it Japanese or English, to meet WP:GNG guidelines. (Contrast this to a similar debate.) - Mailer Diablo 11:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can find no truly independent coverage of this group, and it's a fact that the relationship between Japanese entertainment outlets and the companies that produce idols is considerably more entwined than in the west. This makes me doubtful that there is any reliable sourcing for notability purposes at all. This looks like yet another group that failed to register with the public in a meaningful way. Kudos to DGG for being so patient in waiting for sourcing and dealing with (apparently young) author of this article. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  06:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.