Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edy


 * 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. (non-admin closure) ‡ El cid, el campeador  talk  20:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Edy

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I am unable to locate any references that meet NCORP's criteria for establishing notability, in any language. The article has been tagged since 2008, over 14 years ago, and still has no references.  HighKing++ 17:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator One good reference has been uncovered and based on the other references, it is likely that other references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability exist.  HighKing++ 13:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Japan.  HighKing++ 17:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I would suggest redirecting to Rakuten, the company that makes this product, but it is not mentioned in the article. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are plenty of reliable sources that exist for the subject. Putting "Edyカード" into Google News leads to literally over a thousand results, and "楽天Edy" nearly 10,000. Searching on Google Books for "Edy BitWallet" and "Edy Sony" also has a lot of results. In any case, the subject has had sustained coverage from reliable sources for over two decades, and it seems fairly important despite the poor state of the English article - For reference, Edy was the earliest E-commerce payment system in Japan, and held the largest market share for contactless payments in 2020 (ITMedia 2020). Some more early sources: IT Media 2002, RBB Today 2003 (passing mention), K-Tai Watch 2004, Fujitsu 2004, Famitsu 2005 (though I suppose this one's just a simple tie-in for a game), Ascii.jp 2007. ArcticSeeress (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for retrieving the links but I can't see any of those sources meeting NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Can you link to the best WP:THREE? NCORP criteria has specific requirements for *each* references as per WP:SIRS which takes it above sustained coverage from reliable sources as you mention.
 * Since the topic is a company/organization, NCORP criteria requires multiple references that discuss the *company* in detail. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
 * "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.
 * Looking at the references and links you've provided, they are mostly regurgitated PR/Announcements or passing mentions. ITMedia 2020 produce survey results and the topic company gets a mention-in-passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. IT Media 2002 is based on an announcement, RBB Today 2003 is a passing mention, K-Tai Watch 2004 is totally based on an announcement, Fujitsu 2004 is a case study by Fijitse on BitWallet (their company) who are partners with the topic company therefore not unaffiliated, fails both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH, Famitsu 2005 a tie-in and a mere mention-in-passing fails CORPDEPTH, Ascii.jp 2007 is a Q&A based tutorial on Bitwallet's product, no in-depth info on the company, fails CORPDEPTH. Finally, the report on the spread of electronic money mentions the topic company but does not provide sufficient in-depth information about the company and fails CORPDEPTH.  HighKing++ 10:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added five references to the article (though I haven't added all the information of the first one). I've also dug up a some more that I'll maybe get around to adding at some other point:
 * ケータイ Watch 2004, IT Media 2004, and several more I can't link (only accessible through Gale)
 * In any case, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the references above, and the ones I've added to the article. As I see it, this is more than enough to establish notability. ArcticSeeress (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The second reference is based entirely on an interview with the executive officer of Bitwallet so fails ORGIND. The first reference might not meet WP:RS threshold as it has a disclaimer about the contents.  HighKing++ 17:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You're right, the second source isn't decisive when it comes to notability. As for ケータイ Watch, they seem to have an editorial board, but then again, the articles I've linked are nearly twenty years old, so their editorial practices aren't entirely transparent. In any case, the disclaimer itself seems rather vague, and doesn't necessarily have to mean anything about the reliability of the content. Another source I've used in the article comes from this website, so if you still think they are potentially unreliable, I could find something to replace them.
 * Anyway, do you believe the sources currently used in the article fulfil WP:GNG or WP:NCORP? If not, I could certainly find more. ArcticSeeress (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * To add my own input on the first reference, that seems to be a generic CYA disclaimer, NHK is a WP:RS and also has a similar disclaimer., if the Gale links are better than the ones you currently have, can you post them? Wikipedia editors have access to WP:Gale as part of the Wikipedia Library. Jumpytoo Talk 06:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say they're particularly better, but here: JCNN 2005, Asia Pulse 2011, Yomiuri Shimbun 2005, Card Technology 2002, Asia Pulse 2007. I wasn't sure if linking them would work, but they seem to open just fine in private browsing windows as well. There are a lot more that mention it in passing, but these should be fine. ArcticSeeress (talk) 11:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, some papers that I came across (though the author of the first is closely affiliated with the product): Akamon Business Review 2008 & Nihon University GSSC journal 2002. ArcticSeeress (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the second paper is good. Based on that and the other links, I'll withdraw the nomination as it is likely that sufficient sources exist to establish notability.  HighKing++ 13:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Great, I'll come back to this article sometime in the future, as it's in pretty shoddy shape right now. ArcticSeeress (talk) 10:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn by nominator One good reference has been uncovered and based on the other references, it is likely that other references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability exist.  HighKing++ 13:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment/mea culpa I briefly closed this as withdrawn but realize I should not have per WP:BADNAC. Sincere apologies! - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC) (non-admin unclose)
 * , if you withdraw your Delete !vote, the you can close it or I can close it as the nominator.... <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 16:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources brought up above, it is a significant service. Fulmard (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Per the sources found by Arctic. Thanks for the hard work on trying to save this. Jumpytoo Talk 05:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.