Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daiko Group


 * 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. It has been a lively discussion with some interesting comments. Systemic bias is always worth being aware of - though it also has to be accepted, that it will always be present by the very nature of who contributes to the English version of Wikipedia, and that while we can take positive steps to counter it (WikiProject Countering systemic bias have some ideas), we have to do the appropriate thing when required. This article does not assert notability, and does not provide sources which suggest notability. It doesn't meet the guidelines of WP:CORP. Numbers of employees are not a notability indicator. I will userfy this on request.  SilkTork  *YES! 00:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Daiko Group
)
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

This article contains no references that suggests the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:CORP. A corporation with "over 100 employees" is not likely to cross the bar anyway. I can't find any independent sources on Daiko or Daitec, but I can't search in Japanese. Mkativerata (talk) 08:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is about a holding company with over 700 employees. It is also the parent company of 7 subsidiaries. The "over 100 employees" mentioned above is for only one of the subsidiaries. If you can't improve the article, how about tagging it for improvement? Articles which need improvement should not be brought up for deletion before the chance is given to improve the article. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. 700 employees + 7 subsidiaries does not = notability. The test of notability is independent coverage. The article doesn't establish any independent coverage and I can't find any. Deletion, rather than tagging for improvement, is therefore entirely proper. --Mkativerata (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the current guidelines and policies are very Western-centric. Japan lags far behind the US in putting older articles online, and they often remove articles after a week or two or four. I can guarantee you that this holding company (as well as at least some of its subsidiaries) have been written about in Japanese business magazines and newspapers. However, as I don't live in Japan, I don't have any way to try finding those magazines and newspapers. Until you've tried sourcing a Japanese article, please don't preach to me about policies and guidelines. I'm well aware of them, and well aware of how Western-centric they are. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, the notability of this organisation cannot be verified. We can't compensate for any Western centricity of guidelines by breaking the guidelines. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you are wrong. The notability of this organization can be verified, just likely not online. There's a big difference. That's why I said above that you shouldn't have taken this path to try to get the article improved. Now you've created a situation where your misguided efforts are creating an unrealistic timeline for improvement of the article with references. I've asked someone in Japan to see what they can find, but finding sources within four days is unrealistic (as I stated). ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The article has been around for three years. That's long enough. If sources can be found, it can always be re-created. The page can be userfied in the meantime. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's sad to see the extreme Western bias in some of the editors here. Another thing to note with this company and its subsidiaries is the fact that they tend to be "background" companies (they produce things used by other companies to produce things), so they tend to not be covered in the press as much. The place where references will likely be found is in in industry trade journals rather than mainstream press, and Japanese industry trade journals are even farther behind than the Japanese mainstream press in getting material online, especially older material. I've added one reference regarding a collaboration with Subaru in the creation of another subsidiary company and what it's doing, so only one more to go. Can you restrain yourself long enough to allow the article to receive one more source? ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't think anyone's going to close this as a delete at the moment and I'm more than happy to see sources added if they show notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Nihonjoe is absolutely right about the difficulties in working in non-English areas. Passive bias, I think, results when editors write about what they are familiar with, neglecting the old/foreign/out-of-the-mainstream, etc. This kind of bias is OK, since eventually, we hope, someone with specialised interest or knowledge will fill in those gaps. Active bias results when editors create criteria for exclusion based on that with which they are familiar. This has the result of actively excluding or removing the non-mainstream subjects, which may be perfectly "notable" within their own national/linguistic/historical/or other type of area. This is what happens when, for example, an old Japanese film is held strictly to criteria set up by people who have in mind the current Hollywood blockbuster. This, I think, we should work against. That said, I have no opinion one way or the other on the current subject, only that it be given a fair look which takes into consideration the sourcing issues. Dekkappai (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep New sources are good enough to establish minimum baseline. Delete, unfortunately unverified information must be removed. AND: Comment it is unfortunate that it may be hard to search for sources online because of the nature of Japanese media. it is the job of the article writers to provide the sources. you cannot expect random commentators on the English Wikipedia to be able to find sources that verify this article. verification is a fundamental necessity. deletion isn't final, you can ask to WP:INCUBATE if you think you can do Japanese language print media searches outside the deadline of AfD. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * No, if this article ends up being deleted, I'll just userfy it myself and work on it until it meets the biased requirements. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And no consideration for the fact that it is simple for an article on a comparable US subject to pass the requirements? This is a recipe for bias. Dekkappai (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * agreed, but I don't think "countering bias" is a reason to abandon the precept that all information on wikipedia must be verifiable. I am well known for stating verifiability doesn't have to be easy for the reader. verifiable information might be rare, expensive, or geographically challenging to see but that does not preclude it from being used.  I favor much more reliance on foreign language sources - but it is still the job of the author to show verifiable sources. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * I'm all for verifiable sources myself. In cases like these, a sourced stub, I think, is perfectly acceptable. Problem is "notability" requirements increasingly frown on simple verifiability, requiring a fuller article, which, in cases like these, can be very difficult for non-Anglosphere subjects, but very easy for their US counterparts... Dekkappai (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete as the company does not appear to have any claim to notability, nor any evidence to support such a claim in accordance with WP:CORP. There is nothing biased about the notability requirements, for if this group was notable, signficant coverage from reliable secondary sources in the Japanese edtition of Wikipedia could be transcribed here, but that does not appear to be the case. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The notability requirements are all about bias. That it is unintentional makes it no less so. Dekkappai (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * First, Gavin Collins, you say that the company does not appear to have any claim to notability. You surprise me. One claim it makes to notability is that it employs seven hundred people (here). Is employment of seven hundred people (in the real world) less notable than, say, a Star Trek ship class, a Jennifer Lopez song, an American astrologer, a Final Fantasy character, or a "Miss America" winner? Secondly, you say: if this group was notable, signficant coverage from reliable secondary sources in the Japanese edtition of Wikipedia could be transcribed here: I don't understand the logic at all. Are you perhaps under the impression that notable Japanese groups have articles in ja:WP that are properly sourced? If so, your view of ja:WP is very different from mine. Take the Japanese article on Sharp, for example. I think most people would say that Sharp is a significant outfit. Total number of references in this article on it: zero. Total number of footnotes: one (which is to material by Sharp itself). And this is in no way unusual for medium-length articles in ja:WP, which (as I see it) makes even en:WP look good. Or do I misunderstand you in some other way? -- Hoary (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Is employment of seven hundred people evidence of notablity? I think Mkativerata has already explained that the number of companies in the group, or employees is not significant in itself. Barebones facts are not evidence of notability. Notability to come, perhaps. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's what Mkativerata said: 700 employees + 7 subsidiaries does not = notability. The test of notability is independent coverage. Mkativerata is straightforwardly using "notability" in the way that Wikipedia (perhaps alone in the world) uses it. I had the impression that you were saying that no significant claim of notability (as the word is used by most of the world) is made, and, separately, that no discernible claim comes backed with evidence. But perhaps I misread you. -- Hoary (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Much of the problem, as Nihonjoe has pointed out, is that Japanese "reliable sources" may indeed-- probably do-- cover the subject, but that they're not available through a simple Google search. I've been working on Japanese subjects for a couple years now and have seen many very good "reliable sources"-- articles which covered particular subjects in full-- come and go (online) within a few weeks. And they are routinely blocked from archives-- don't ask me why. Sourcing for English counterparts to these subjects would remain, while the Japanese subjects-- every bit as "notable" using WP's own standards-- are, to all available evidence, not "notable". Dekkappai (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In case someone's thinking of linking to "Assume Good Faith" or some such: I think we should clarify that by "bias", I don't think we mean an obvious bias against another group. The kind of bias Wiki's "notability" promotes comes from the assumption that the sources which cover equally "notable" subjects from all time periods, in all subject areas, in all locations and in all languages, are equally accessable as they are for the current, mainstream, English-speaking world. And that if they aren't, they don't exist. Dekkappai (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I found a second reliable source for the article and I've added it. The article now meets WP:CORP. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Multiple secondary reliable sourcing no longer theoretical thanks to Nihonjoe. Dekkappai (talk) 05:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Alas, the addition of trivial coverage does not provide any evidence of notability. The announcement that the company makes "automotive service manuals" or "recently announced the expansion of its Shanghai facilities" is specifically disallowed as evidence of notability by WP:CORP, which says:


 * "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources do not count as substantial coverage unless the organization itself is also a major subject of the story. Neither do the publication of routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel, routine mergers or sales of part of the business, the addition or dropping of product lines, or facility openings or closings, unless these events themselves are the subject of sustained, independent interest.


 * These trivial sources are far removed from what constitutes evidence of notability, such as a company's demonstrable impact or influence in the fields of culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Barebones statements that is company makes manuals is Japan and resins in China is not evidence of notability by a long shot. What is lacking is significant coverage about this group in accordance with WP:GNG. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well Gavin, you're setting the bar for notability rather high. I have a certain interest in photography. If a company must demonstrate impact or influence in the fields of culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education then I think what are well/best known as camera companies can be whittled down from Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Pentax, Mamiya, Minolta, Konica, Graflex, Argus, Kodak, Rollei, and a pile of others I can't be bothered to type to just three: Polaroid (for reasons that I surely need not list), Eastman Kodak (but only for what it did in the 19th century), and Ernst Leitz, which only after it had achieved a genuine impact renamed itself after its main product, Leica. Take Nikon, for example. The Nikon F was (and remains) a fine product; but if Nihon Kōgaku, its maker, hadn't existed, then more of the SLR market pie would have gone within one or two years to Canon, the now largely forgotten Tōkyō Kōgaku (maker of the Topcon) or some other company making modular and tough SLRs, and to little or no discernible effect the photography of the Vietnam war, etc. If Leitz had vanished during the war (decades before it became Leica), more attention would have been paid circa 1950 to the similar (and in my opinion superior) cameras from Canon and other makers. And I think that much the same could be said for most industries, no matter how grandly their companies describe themselves. Your user page suggests that you are in the accountancy biz. How many accountancy companies do you suppose demonstrate impact or influence in the fields of culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education; if Wikipedia whittled its coverage to these, would it thereby be improved? -- Hoary (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I think you are missing the principles of what a claim to notability is based upon as set out in WP:CORP. There is no significant coverage in this article, and hence there is no reason for a standalone article about this group or its products at this time. Wikipedia is not a buisness directory, afterall. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, WP:CORP, yes. Here's the gist: A company [...] is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. So it doesn't need to have any impact or influence in the fields of culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education; though if it demonstrably (via RS) does, then that's your notability delivered with ribbons. Well, time permitting, I'll poke around the library on the 25th. -- Hoary (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But it does pass WP:CORP. That guideline sets up some specifics, written by US/English speaking editors. And right at the top, in a big, obtrusive banner, I read, "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." In order to prevent bias towards the Anglosphere, it is common sense to give a foreign-language subject some leeway. Insisting that it literally follow guidelines set up by editors whose only familiarity is the Anglosphere is a sure way to create biased coverage. Dekkappai (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, Hoary, You shamed me into doing a search. I'm an artsy-fartsy, film/music guy, and my eyes glaze over at anything faintly business-related, so I don't know how relevant any of this is. But I found two pages worth of article-citations to Daiko on InfoTrac. The ones with the name in the title are:
 * * The second largest ad agency in Japan, Hakuhodo, is to merge with the fifth and sixth largest agencies, Daiko and Yomiko. (International).(Brief Article) (Brief Article) Brand Strategy, 0965-9390, Jan 2003 p5(1)
 * Hakuhodo, Daiko, Yomiko to Merge in Autumn 2003. Asia Africa Intelligence Wire, Dec 2, 2002 pNA
 * World's top 25: 19 Daiko Advertising; Ad organization profiles: Rankings, worldwide holdings and developments throughout the year for agency groups above $11 million gross income. (Brief Article)(Statistical Data Included) Advertising Age, 0001-8899, April 23, 2001 v72 pS20
 * Daiko could be slow to change under IPG. David Kilburn, Marketing Magazine, 1196-4650, April 17, 2000 p6(1)
 * Daiko deal offers IPG little spin-off; IPG's planned purchases of a stake in Daiko will catapult parent company Lowe Lintas into a prime position in Japan. But capitalising on this new clout may prove a challenge, says David Kilburn.(Brief Article) (Brief Article) Marketing Week, 0141-9285, April 13, 2000 p30
 * IPG Acquires Daiko Stake; Seeks Lowe Partnership.(Brief Article) (Brief Article) ADWEEK Eastern Edition, 0199-2864, April 3, 2000 v41 i14 p8
 * INTERPUBLIC GROUP TO TAKE 20% STAKE IN DAIKO ADVERTISING. AsiaPulse News, April 3, 2000 p0414
 * GREY ACQUIRES FULL OWNERSHIP OF GREY DAIKO IN JAPAN. AsiaPulse News, August 3, 1999 p1008214u6684
 * Daiko sets up Beijing joint venture.(Daiko Advertising Inc. joins the China Council for Promotion of International Trade to create the Daiko Pacific International Advertising Co.)(Brief Article) (Brief Article) ADWEEK Eastern Edition, 0199-2864, Sept 25, 1995 v36 n39 p9(1)
 * Daiko profits drop 44.8%. (Brief Article) Advertising Age, 0001-8899, July 6, 1992 v63 n27 p8(1)
 * Daiko mulls staffing Grey Europe. David Kilburn, Elena Bowes, Advertising Age, 0001-8899, Sept 24, 1990 v61 n39 p39(1)
 * Daiko, Japan's no. 5 shop, considers European moves. Elena Bowes, David Kilburn, Advertising Age, 0001-8899, August 20, 1990 v61 n34 p59(1)
 * Hope there's something useful there, and Hoary can stay home & enjoy something Kaji Meiko-ish for the holidays... Dekkappai (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. On second glance it looks like these all refer to a different Daiko. Looks like we're back to applying common sense to English-based "notability" criteria, and Kaji will have to wait till New Year... Dekkappai (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2009 (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.