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 keep. Tone 09:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Horipro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources are too weak to show that this company passes WP:NORG. Tagged over a year ago as needing more sources to show it meets notability criteria and none have been added. Fails WP:GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No question. Even though there aren't great sources they (and ANN, linked as an ext link, and Japanese Wikipedia's sources) easily show that this company is a major player. I can try and add a few more. —innotata 02:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just going to point to the part at the top of WP:NORG that says "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Applying WP:COMMONSENSE here means thinking that the company that has managed some of the most well-known stars in Japan, and whose name has often been mentioned alongside those stars in their press coverage across several decades, is probably notable enough to have an article in an encyclopedia that readers can consult. The likely conclusion is the same whether or not a Japanese speaker sifts through 18,000+ GNews hits on "ホリプロ". Bakazaka (talk) 09:51, 17 September 2018 (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.