Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A-WING International

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. Cirt (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A-WING International[edit]

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

Nonworthy company. Spam. Rasputin72 (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 08:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 08:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: "Nonworthy" is a new one to me. Could the nominator please elucidate? -- Hoary (talk) 08:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response. This company is not significant on any level, and there exists no reliable third party coverage of this company. Rasputin72 (talk) 08:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You speak with a stunning confidence that surely can only come from somebody who has already visited a large Japanese library and examined the Japanese-language CD-ROM-based and other subscription-only information on corporate affairs. Well done! You were fast; may I send you my own requests for library sleuthing? -- Hoary (talk) 08:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In your exhaustive research on this topic, Rasputin72, what did you conclude about the relationship between A-WING and 新日本電力? -- Hoary (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you can. Feel free to contact me with requests for archival research anytime. Thank you and have a nice day. Rasputin72 (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, db-corp, unless someone can come up with a claim to notability and a decent source. Hairhorn (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rasputin72 has already stated that none exists. He seems to have overlooked a story in the December '09 issue of 電設資材, for one. Unfortunately it's not a magazine to which I subscribe. Hairhorn, do you have it? -- Hoary (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I had a look at Google's translation of their site, and although the site was professional-looking they only had one press release (from last year) in their news archive. In any case, the article certainly doesn't assert notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at least pending assertion of notability in the article. Perhaps Hoary can clarify why he believes the company is notable? 2help (message me) 21:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe anything about the notability of the company. I'm merely astonished that a simple descriptive sentence can be labeled spam for a "nonworthy" company, and that anyone can so take so little time for a flat assertion that "there exists no reliable third party coverage" of any subject in Japan, a nation where a pitifully small percentage of putatively reliable sources are googlable or indeed on the web at all. -- Hoary (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia entries are for notable topics; this entry gives no particular reason to think the company is notable, that's why it's up for deletion. If you can demonstrate this company is notable, go ahead, there is no requirement that sources be online or in English. Hairhorn (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I warmly agree with most of what you say, but would point out that Rasputin72's nomination was not for lack of evidence adduced of notability but instead "Nonworthy company. Spam." -- Hoary (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Nonworthy" I charitably interpreted as "non-notable". As for spam, I'm not convinced it's spam, but I'll grant that the line between spam and an entry for a non-notable company is pretty thin. Hairhorn (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2010 (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.