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! 22:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Elecom

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

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

Nowhere near a consensus at 2017 AfD, and has been in CAT:NN for 11 years. I've removed notability tag now, as if it survives a 2nd AfD, even with no consensus, there is nothing to be gained from keeping it in CAT:NN.

I'm aware that I may be missing points as I cannot read Japanese, but I can't find anything to show the level of in-depth coverage or significance that I would look for to meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 07:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 07:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 07:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep per the list of articles posted at Talk:Elecom#Possible refs to use for the article. I may have time over the next few days to review them more thoroughly and add information to the article. I picked only those articles that seemed to be about the company rather than articles about its products (of which there are many). ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I've expanded it significantly and added a lot of reliable sources. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Please pick two of those sources which you think meet the WP:SIRS requirements of WP:CORP an link them here. Spinning Spark 18:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
      • @ Spinningspark: See below. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 13:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I had a brief look at some of the sources on the list indicated above. They all fail WP:CORP big time. #1 is a review of one of the ompany's products, not about the company itself, #2 and #3 are Japanese Yahoo, #4 is a routine dividend announcement. I'm not seeing the "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" as required by the new guidelines. Spinning Spark 18:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • You seem unfamiliar with Japanese news, based on your comments here. NHK OhaBiz is a highly-regarded morning business show. The equivalent would be something like Nightly Business Report ( link). The news of Elecom winning their lawsuit against Epson was quite big, and ITMedia News is considered reliable ( link). Winning all of the BCN Awards for four years running in the categories mentioned in the articles is certainly notable, as is winning the Good Design Awards. All of that, taken together, more than meets WP:GNG, let alone WP:CORP. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 13:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Also, the only "Japanese Yahoo" (which is quite different than Yahoo over here, BTW) is the news about Elecom sponsoring the charity golf tournament. I'm not sure where you're seeing a second one from Yahoo, as there isn't one. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 13:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply
    • From your comment it seems you are unfamiliar with the relatively new requirements for corporations. WP:CORP has been deliberately made a more onerous requirment than GNG. GNG is no longer enough. Please read the requirement carefully to make sure you understand it. The first link you gave is an interview. Interviews are explicitly stated to be primary sources and thus fail SIRS for notability which requires secondary sources. The patent dispute with Epson is more about the ink cartridge product than the company. CORP has this to say for example, an article on a product recall...is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product...but not a significant coverage on the company (unless the article...devotes significant attention to the company itself). Maybe we can give that one some points towards notability, but more than that is needed directly on the company itself. Spinning Spark 15:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply
      • I'm familiar with it. The link has interview segments, but the coverage is more than just the interview. The patent dispute article was about the company, as Epson sued the company, not their ink cartridges. The article covers the settlement of the suit. Additionally, the company has won the multiple awards for product design across multiple years in multiple categories, which also confers notability. Taken all together, they more than meet CORP and GNG, and a specific notability guideline cannot override a company meeting GNG. If any topic (including a company) can meet the GNG, it is considered notable, regardless of anything else. See WP:SNG for more details. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply
        • I think we should introduce "hard" notabilty to NCORP (as per NPROF) for certain attributes. Certainly a quoted stock with a capitalisation over USD1bn, and employees over 500, should be automatically considered notable. It would save a lot of time imho. Britishfinance ( talk) 15:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply
          • @ Britishfinance: I would support that as it would make things easier when trying to figure out notability. A smaller company could certainly still be notable, but this would set some clear thresholds beyond which a company is always notable. You should start up a discussion. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply
          • @ Britishfinance: I would support hard criteria too. In fact, I would go further and say we should have hard criteria for everything that does not meet the Fifty year rule, especially organisations, people and products. At the same time, subjects within that ambit and failing to meet the hard rules should be subject to enhanced GNG a la WP:CORP. But the bottom line is Wikipedia standards do not always match my (or your) personal standards and that's what we have to go with in the meantime. Spinning Spark 13:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply
            • @ Spinningspark: But right now, there is no such thing as "enhanced GNG" (whatever you mean by that). The specific guidelines such as WP:CORP are only there as an alternate way to meet WP:N. If any topic meets GNG, it passes WP:N, regardless of anything else. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply
              • Didn't I just say we don't have it already. Why do you find it necessary to tell me what I have already said (and whatever do you mean by "whatever you mean by that" – didn't you read the linked essay explaining what I mean). As for GNG v SNG, no. NCORP was rewritten explicitly to put stronger requirements on company articles: These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules... There was a massive RFC about this rewrite in 2018. Spinning Spark 19:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply
                • A more specific guideline for meeting notability cannot override GNG. If any topic meets GNG, it doesn't have to meet a more specific guideline. NCORP cannot be more restrictive than GNG. It can only provide an alternate to GNG. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:HEY by Nihonjoe. It would be hard to argue now that this company is not notable in Japan, and should be deleted. Note that Elecom is a quoted stock in Japan (No. 6750, with its own news feed on Bloomberg) and with a USD$2bn market cap [1] Britishfinance ( talk) 15:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment Can anybody find some analyst reports that cover the company? Analyst reports meet the criteria for establishing notability and quoted companies on important stock exchanges are usually covered. HighKing ⁺⁺ 15:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • @ HighKing: Not sure what they are supposed to look like, but I found this and this. I'm not sure where to even look for anything else. This isn't my area of expertise. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Unfortunately most major analyst reports are not publicaly availalbe (you can't even pay for them). Elecom have some analyst reports on their own IR site here, and they appear in IR Street lists here. They are also covered by one of the big credit analysts, Dun and Bradstreet (these are the most comprehensive analyst reports), and their DNB page is here. There are four Japanese analysts currently covering the company (see here), although I cannot see their names. Britishfinance ( talk) 18:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply
      • HighKing, per the conversation above the re-list, should we have some kind of WP:LISTEDCORP that clarifies these rules (like NPROF) that would guarantee notability (not just imply). E.g. quoted market cap above $USD1bn (at some time), and covered by at least one analyst (or do we have this already). Britishfinance ( talk) 18:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply
        • I think your suggestion would certainly streamline a lot of discussions that take place on the notability of listed companies. I've checked the links posted above in relation to analyst reports but none meet the criteria - I'll explain why. The reason why analyst reports are usually good for notability is that the analyst will provide in-depth information *and* their own opinion. The reports linked above are simple directory listings. The analyst reports linked to from here are also simply regurgitating company announcements (e.g. this) and do not contain Independent Content as per WP:ORGIND. So on the basis of finding an analyst report, so far I've drawn a blank. But given that the company generates nearly USD $1Bn annually in revenues and has assets of over USD $80bn ( see here) is does seem that [WP:NCORP|our guidelines] need to provide for these companies. HighKing ⁺⁺ 19:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply
          • I agree with you HK. Those IR reports looked odd to me too. I think the Morningstar (who are an analyst, although not an i-bank anlyst), and DNB (who are obviously doing reports on their credit – although behind a paywall), would be the best candidates. I can see a 10-page 2011 analyst repot from Morgan Stanley MUFG on them on the bloomberg feed, but the link to the document is empty? At least Morningstar and DNB allow one to be aware of the existance of reports on companies, however, it is pretty rare to find good quality analyst (e.g. investment bank) material freely downloadable on the web (even for USD 100bn companies)? Britishfinance ( talk) 20:55, 17 July 2020 (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.