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. Even after three (!) relists there is nothing approaching a consensus here -- if anything the discussion drifted further from consensus after the final relist. A Train^talk 20:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elecom[edit]

Elecom (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)

• Delete Unremarkable company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I will repeat a bit of what I said about the same user's other nomination of a major Japanese IT corporation article for deletion. First, Elecom is, like I-O Data, listed in the First Section of the Tokyo Stock Exchange (which is reserved for large corportations)[1]. As WP:LISTED states, the consensus is that public listing by itself is not sufficient to establish notability, "However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion....Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion." A search of Japanese business and IT news sites finds plenty of coverage of both the company and its products: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], etc. Michitaro (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In light of information provided below.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- out of the three sources listed, one is the company's web site, another one is a 404, and the third one is ja.wiki. The number of employees listed (500) is more of a mid-size company, so we cannot presume automatic notability here. We should expect better sourcing from our articles; thus, delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check any of the dozen sources I found? I also note WP:NRVE: "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article." You should comment based on the evidence presented and the evidence available through concerted searches, not based on what is currently in the article. Michitaro (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: the updated sources are still inadequate as they merely link to stock listings. DrStrauss talk please use ((ping|DrStrauss)) when replying 11:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - As SoWhy noted, the sources I provided are not all stock listings. In fact, the vast majority are not. Users voting on this AfD should properly check the sources provided and provide reasons for why they are not adequate if the user is voting delete. Michitaro (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you could pick three or less references that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability, you'll find editors are more inclined to look at them. Nevertheless, here's my take on them. The first four are all from the same source (www.nikkei.com) and are all company announcements therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. There are also 4 references from impress.co.jp that are likewise all company announcements or material sourced almost exclusively from company sources and therefore fail WP:ORGIND. The next from nikkeibp.co.jp is likewise a story that almost exclusively sources its content from company material and the CEO and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.

The first impress.co.jp source is a good example of why other editors are turned off a large number of reference listings. This one is an as bad as it gets as a reference to establish notability. It is an advertorial reporting on an "event" held by Elecom for a new device complete with models holding the product, photographs of the product, instructions for use, price (excluding tax), obligatory photo and quotations from the CEO. Obviously, this reference fails WP:ORGIND. But by listing it, other editors will just think to themselves that the person who put it forward hasn't a clue about the requirements for establishing notability and not waste their time with whatever is remaining.

Moving on ... the digimonostation reference fails WP:ORGIND as it is a regurgitated press release (the link for the "official" press release is even provided at the bottom of the article) and uses much of the same description and the same photographs. The kabutan article is a business-as-usual commentary on the stock price and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The zaikei article is debatable - be aware I'm using Google translate - because there's a switch from using the third person "Elecom won..." to the first person " "we have already gained". If it is written by a neutral third party with no direct input (quotations) from company sources then in my opinion it qualifies as a source that establishes notability. We need a minimum of two sources to establish notability. If another source can be found, I'd be happy to change my !vote but as it stands, it is still a Delete. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -Sorry for the delay in responding. I have been quite busy and this response required time I really didn’t have. Also sorry for repeating some of wording of my response to the I-O Data AfD, but the two have been kind of proceeding in parallel and I don’t have time to write something completely new.

First, I have been rather frustrated with this AfD. From the nominator to some of those voting, I have seen a distinct failure to either perform what should be done WP:BEFORE nominating, or afterwards, to look beyond the existing article per WP:NRVE and perform one’s duty to consider the evidence presented in the AfD or to search for evidence on one’s own. Having participated in hundreds of AfD’s, this is nothing new to me, but I still feel the need to remind participants of what is necessary to participate in an AfD.

That is one reason I am not offended by HighKing’s comments in this AfD, even though I strongly disagree with them. At least HighKing has largely been doing what is necessary.

But HighKing is wrong on most of the points and reveals ignorance of both Japanese media and the corporate world.

First, HighKing’s dismissal of all the Nikkei articles is quite shocking, and is done with absolutely no evidence. Perhaps HighKing is unaware of it, but The Nikkei, as explained below, is the equivalent of the Wall Street Journal and, according to Wikipedia, “the world’s largest financial newspaper.” To argue that its news articles on corporate happenings lacks neutrality and is essential promotion is like arguing that the Wall Street Journal is an unreliable source. If HighKing can present concrete evidence that the consensus about the main source of financial and business news in Japan is wrong and that the Nikkei is an unreliable source, I encourage him/her to bring that evidence to WikiProject Japan. I doubt anyone would accept it. The Nikkei is an essential and independent source of news of the business world for investors and those in business. HighKing needs to prove otherwise to reject the sources I provided. Second, HighKing is completely mistaken about [14]: it an authored piece from Nikkei’s prime magazine and is written from an independent perspective. Can HighKing cite evidence that says otherwise? Third, as for Kabutan [15], it first might look like just providing stock market data for the company, but if you scroll down you can see that these are really just a top page that links to dozens of articles on the company’s stock and profits. In toto, they provide a wealth of detailed, independent reporting on the company—quite a lot for a free site. If there is a problem with [16], it is just that Elecom is merely featured in the article, and is not the sole subject of the article (I assume the question of the “we” in the article id a problem with Google Translate since there is no Japanese word “we” in the article). That is sufficient for considering WP:GNG. I see no problem with [17] or [18], especially since they are reporting on a major M&A that was reported elsewhere in the Sankei [19] and the Nikkei [20]. I will concede that some of the other citations may not live up to the standard of the Nikkei (again, I picked these up in a short time), there are aspects that are usable.

So of the articles I found after only a brief search of the net, I believe I have already provided HighKing with more than the three articles s/he asks for. But there are more.

I can also cite the existence of a number of articles from major business print magazines as indicated by the CiNii database [21]. To give people a sense of the articles, here are a few (with my translations of the titles):

“Research on Companies no. 60: Elecom,” Nikkei Business no. 1810 (2015/10/5), 62-67.

”Distribution Point: Elecom: Introducing Distribution Robots,” Logi Biz v. 15, no. 6 (Sept. 2015), 64-67.

”Reports on Companies with Integrity: Elecom: Celebrating Ideals, Growth for both Individuals and the Company,” PHP Business Review no. 68 (June 2011), p. 38-45

”Series: Winning Companies: Elecom—Making PC Accessories Attractive and Pleasurable through Data and Art Management,” President, v. 37 no. 2 (Feb. 1999), 168-171.

Note that all are multiple page reports on the company that go back nearly 20 years.

I will ignore HighKing’s statement that I don’t have “clue about the requirements for establishing notability,” since that itself was based on lack of knowledge both of me and of the sources I provided. Perhaps HighKing should re-read WP:CIVIL.

I should next note that it is not easy to find articles on any Japanese subject because of the way the major Japanese media use the internet. Most of the articles older than a week or two in the major national newspapers plus most of the major magazines are behind pay walls. This has been a major problem for all of us working on Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. To me, the amount I found in just a few minutes produced the reaction: “Wow, there’s this much on open sites.” By experience, we know that is a very good indication there is as much or more behind the paywalls.

This time, to get just a sense of it, I spent a couple of hours (I didn’t really have) checking the library databases of a few of the major newspapers.

To start with, I checked The Nikkei, Japan’s equivalent of the Wall Street Journal. A search of the database produced 800 articles in the Nikkei and its related publications that mention Elecom. Clearly many are incidental mentions, and quite a number are short reports of 200-300 words on the company’s quarterly reports and personnel changes (though the Nikkei of course only reports those if the company is a major company). I didn’t have time to check 800 articles, so I tried a few other keywords to get some samples. I am sure I missed many. Here are just a few of the substantial articles solely on the company I found:

”Elecom Releases 32 Devices to Mass Retailers: Smart Phones Now Closer to VR,” Nikkei Sangyo Shinbun, 2016/9/27, p. 7

”PC Device Company Elecom Invests 20 Million, Aim to Double Sales,” Nikkei Sangyo Shinbun, 2016/4/28, p. 13

”Elecom Increases Production 300% ,” Nikkei Sangyo Shinbun, 2016/1/25, p. 17

”Elecom Steers towards Corporate Sales,” Nikkei Sangyo Shinbun, 2014/6/4, p. 7

”Elecom, Major Company in PC Peripherals: HDD as New Cash Cow,” Nikkei Sangyo Shinbun, 2011/10/15, p. 4

”Elecom: Centering on Smart Phone Related Business, Entering App Market, Strengthening Business Abroad,” Nikkei Sangyo Shinbun, 2011/10/15, p. 4

”Elecom: Expanding Abroad, 300 Outlets in Russia and 150 in India by End of Year,” Nikkei Sangyo Shinbun, 2007/10/29, p. 17

“Rookie Analysis: Elecom: Listed on JASDAC from Nov. 22, Focused on AV Devices” Nikkei Kinyu Shinbun 2006/11/10, p. 4

”Companies with Expertise: Elecom: Top Share in Mouses etc.,” Nihon Keizai Shinbun, 2001/12/18 p. 29

”Elecom: PC Peripherals, Directing Space as a Set,” Nikkei Sangyo Shinbun, 2001/8/1, p. 20

”Software Japan’s Trump Card is Tie-Up with Elecom,” Nikkei Sangyo Shinbun, 1995/2/2, p. 7

”Rising New Ventures 14: Elecom,” Nikkei Sangyo Shinbun, 1994/9/22, p. 30

”Elecom Secures Supply of LAN Devices from Taiwan Company,” Nikkei Sangyo Shinbun, 1994/6/10, p. 23

”Elecom Focuses on Boards in Preparation for Stock IPO,” Nikkei Sangyo Shinbun, 1994/5/12, p. 22

etc. etc.

I also tried some of the regular newspaper databases. Such business articles are rarer in these, and the truth is that many of the mentions are actually for the American Football team it sponsors (Elecom Kobe Finies [22]), which is in the top division in Japan, but there were still a few substantial articles on the company:

”Elecom Groomy: Green Hit,” Asahi Shinbun, 2003/5/24, p. 56

”The New Venture Age: Elecom,” Yomiuri Shinbun, 1996/1/6. p. 11

”Elecom: Source of Power is Sense of Speed,” Mainichi Shinbun, 2001/7/2, p. 9

If I may say so, it was easier to find articles on Elecom than I-O Data. That by no means indicates that I-O fails notability requirements, but it may indicate that Elecom is considered more notable by the Japanese media than I-O is.

Again, this is what I came up with in the limited time I have, using databases that, frankly, are rather clunky. But just the above makes it very clear that the company passes the requirements for notability (WP:GNG) on Wikipedia. Again, with experience participating in hundreds of AfDs, I cannot see any justification for deleting this article. Michitaro (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michitaro, this is way too long for an AfD and frankly most won't read it. You're still insisting that company announcements printed in reliable sources (doesn't matter if its the Wall Street Journal or the Nikkei) meet the criteria for establishing notability. It has been already pointed out to you that references such as those fail the criteria. Producing more of the same doesn't help your argument. Listing references (such as "Elecom Groomy: Green Hit") with no links or ISBN references doesn't help your argument. I tried to assist you previously by asking that you simply produce three references that meet the criteria. That is probably, still, your best response. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing Your response is very disappointing and frankly difficult to comprehend. I provide loads of sources and evidence and you essentially ignore them. You say these are "company announcements" as if it is a fact but you have offered not one shred of evidence that these are company announcements and not--which is what they are--independent reliable reporting of the news. The burden is on you to prove it and you have failed, and you deny that failure by refusing to engage in constructive argument. I have shown that your argument is full of holes and misunderstandings. I have provided your three sources online and many many off-line sources. No where on Wikipedia is there a requirement that sources must be online. You can always go to the library to check these sources (I provided issue and page numbers). Now if you read WP:COLLAB and WP:AGF, you would try to work with me on this if you can't access these, but your attitude is not helpful here. I think that attitude undermines your argument here. Michitaro (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I was asked to provide ISBN numbers, but ISBN numbers are for books and none of the references I provided are from books. So here are the direct links to the CiNii entries for the magazine articles: [23], [24], [25], [26]. Michitaro (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: 1. I don't think it is an acceptable argument against notability to argue that someone has provided too many sources. 2. WP:CORPDEPTH says "Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage," and goes on to provide a number of examples of trivial coverage. HighKing seems to go well beyond this when they reject the Nikkei Shimbun. HighKing has themselves said that the BCN award mentioned in Kabutan would establish notability. The full listings of those awards are here ([27], [28]) and they appear to be based on the point of sale data for the market share of various products. Many of these are trivial, but some of them are not - for instance (second link), Elecom has the highest market share of sales of computer mice - higher than Logitech. Furius (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why on earth would someone be expected to supply an ISBN for the Asahi Shinbun. Furius (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, talk about being misquoted. I did not reject the "Nikkei Shimbun". I did not say the BCN awards were notable and that the award would establish notability. And LoL, what I actually asked for was a link *or* an ISBN number for the many many references listed by Michitaro since the reference are offline and nearly all editors here won't have access to those databases and of the online references posted by Michitaro, none pass the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I do apologize to others for the burden caused by providing so many sources. I just felt that some on this AfD were not looking properly at the sources I provided, so I erred on the side of volume (though not on quality). I am still confused by HighKing's comments. On the one hand, s/he says that none of the online references I provided pass the criteria for establishing notability. I concede that a few are not that good, but HighKing has not responded to my defense of the others. What's odd is that HighKing says s/he is not rejecting the Nikkei when the fact that is exactly what s/he is doing, since five of the online articles I cited are from the Nikkei and its related publications. The argument that these are company press releases remains unfounded and basically calls into question all the corporate news gathering of the major financial paper in Japan (and one of the biggest in the world). I have the feeling HighKing should re-read WP:INDEPENDENT because there is a major difference between a website reprinting a corporate press release and an independent and third-party major news organization, with no conflict of interest, providing news coverage of what a corporation is doing. All the newspaper coverage I provided, including the online Nikkei coverage, are independent and significant RS that satisfy WP:GNG. HighKing has not shown they do not, but instead makes unfounded claims that essentially argue that the Nikkei only prints corporate press releases.

One problem, as I stated above, is that the Japanese media is protective of its content, and thus the major companies put their older material behind paywalls. So the majority--and in many cases the best (because you have to pay for the best)--coverage is either in print or in for-pay databases. So what to do? In previous AfDs where I have cited off-line sources, most participants have taken it in good faith that I am not making them all up and have used them as indication that RS exist (I don't recall an AfD where the article was subsequently deleted in such a case). We are, after all, not determining whether the article should be promoted to feature article status, but rather seeing if the weight of coverage tends towards WP:GNG. I sense that some here are not willing to assume good faith, so those participants may want to see the articles. I did provide the relevant bibliographic information for those who can use the databases or go to a library (which is what I did). The databases of all the newspapers I cited can be searched at any library in Japan and at many major research and even public institutions abroad. If there is a problem with not knowing Japanese, I suggest one solution: that someone neutral to this AfD or who has not yet participated make a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan for some members to check on the Japanese sources I have given to determine if they help satisfy WP:GNG, and/or to make additional searches to determine if those also help satisfy WP:GNG. I cannot guarantee a quick response (WPJ members are few in number and overburdened as it is), but this seems a reasonable option. Michitaro (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again the points I've made are being misrepresented and misquoted. I would prefer if you stop misquoting and misrepresenting what I have said and creating strawman arguments by falsely attributing statements and flawed reasoning to me. INDEPENDENT covers the criteria for establishing if a source is a reliable source but it does not mean that every article printed is an acceptable reference for the purposes of establishing notability. I've made the point several times and I have yet to see any indication that you understand the difference between a reliable source and a reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. You concede that "a few are not that good" yet all the ones I have been able to examine fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. For example impress.co.jp may very well meet the criteria of INDEPENDENT but the individual article (and not the publishing entity) still fails ORG and CORPDEPTH. Similarly, this nikkei article fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH as it relies entirely on quotation from company sources - but I emphasise that my comment is about the article, not that the source fails to meet INDEPENDENT. I can only provide an opinion on the references I can access and since I have yet to see two sources that meets the criteria, I have no reason to change my !vote. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am still mystified by your definition of WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Most of the sources I provide do not fall into the long list of sources that don't count that those provide. Even the Nikkei BP article you cite satisfies WP:ORGIND. I do see that WP:CORPDEPTH mentions "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources," but are you interpreting that to mean that any long article that contains even one quote from a company official fails WP:CORPDEPTH? Keep in mind that that criterion is under the rubric of examples of "trivial coverage," which the Nikkei BP article clearly is not. I would think the more reasonable interpretation of that criterion is that we are are not supposed to be considering very short articles made up mostly of quotes. So I really don't understand your application of this standard. But I should remind you that I have from the start been arguing on the basis of WP:GNG. Since Wikipedia:Notability states we only have to show the article "meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline," the article passes notability if it passes WP:GNG regardless of whether it passes WP:COMPANY. Since you accept that these sources pass WP:INDEPENDENT, you are admitting that they clear the basic requirements for considering WP:GNG. I have yet to see an argument that this fails to pass WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While a source may be INDEPENDENT, it does not guarantee that each and every article published by that source can be considered "independent of the subject itself". In essence, by relying extensively on company produced materials and/or quotations from company officers, those articles are not considered "independent of the subject". WP:COMPANY expands on this and provides further clarification. For example, WP:ORGIND specifically excludes "other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people". -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this AfD is several times larger and better-sourced than the article. Based on their website, the company is unlikely to meet any size-based presumption of notability, and there are no sources presented that prove notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NRVE. The current state of the article is not to be the basis of judging notability. And can you give your reasons for stating that "there are no sources presented that prove notability," especially after you say that the sources in the AfD are better. You seem to be contradicting yourself, since the sources in the AfD are sources to be considered when determining notability. Finally, can you cite Wikipedia policy that makes size an important factor in judging notability and that gives a guideline about judging size? Michitaro (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Electronics industry in Japan. If the subject were notable, after several weeks of discussion the article would describe how the topic is notable. In this case, simply being a brand name in one country isn't sufficient for being notable. However, it is a perfectly valid search term, so I support a redirect. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure a redirect to that article is correct - which criteria under WP:POFR do you see as appropriate. If List of Electronic Companies in Japan existed, I would agree that the company should be included in such a list. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Electronics industry in Japan, after adding it to that article with citation.. Not notable under the guidelines, but redirects are cheap. --Bejnar (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2017 (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.