Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuji Food


 * 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. North America1000 00:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Fuji Food

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable food company, tagged for notability, non-RS and other multiple issues since 2012, created by SPA, content entirely promotional Lockley (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  21:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  21:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  21:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing ++ 17:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The article notes: "If there's no sushi chef out front, an outside facility is likely sending it in. The largest such supplier is Fuji Food Products, which ships sushi to some Target, Walgreens, and Trader Joe's stores, among other chains. At six factories countrywide, machines turn out rolls that are then sent to their destinations several times a week. Like any food purveyor, Fuji is held to safety standards set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)."  The article notes: "... Alex Meruelo, whose Downey-based Meruelo Group holding company has owned Fuji Foods since 2009. ... Fuji, founded in 2009, sells a broad variety of ready-to-eat Asian food under the Gourmet Kitchen and Chef Select brands. Among its products are a variety of California rolls, more traditional sushi with raw fish, and other items such as Kung Pao chicken, pot stickers and Mongolian beef. The typical sales price is about $6 and the products are distributed in 4,000 stores nationwide, including Trader Joe’s and Vons markets. ... Fuji operates plants in Santa Fe Springs, Seattle, Boston and Denver, while Okami has plants in Denver and Sun Valley."  The article notes: "The nation's largest provider and distributor of prepacked sushi is opening a manufacturing center in South Elgin that's set to start shipping products next month. Santa Fe Springs, Calif.-based Fuji Food Products Inc. said today that it is nearing completion on the 40,000- square-foot plant on Schneider Drive that will produce refrigerated, ready-to-eat meals such as sushi, salads, rice bowls, sandwiches and wraps. It will employ about 100 workers, a spokeswoman said. ... Fuji Food's products are carried in about 6,000 U.S. stores, including airport vendors, convenience stores, grocery and large-format club stores in 45 states. Its customers include Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, Costco, Walgreen, Target, Sam's Club and 7-Eleven. ... Fuji Food is a division of privately held Meruelo Group, a Downey, Calif.-based holding company that has interests in construction, banking, real estate, media and a Nevada casino. Meruelo was in the news briefly in 2011 after a bid to buy the Atlanta Hawks NBA team failed."  The article notes: "Capitalizing on our desire for convenient, yet more ethnic dishes, food producers have begun distributing sushi more widely. Fuji Food Products, one of the largest providers of pre-packaged deli sushi, distributes sushi to more than 6,000 stores across the U.S."  The article notes: "Prepackaged sushi distributor Fuji Food Products Inc. announced today that it received $5.8 million in venture capital to double its presence and distribution infrastructure nationwide by the end of the year. Santa Monica-based Funk Ventures Capital Partners provided the funding for expansion of the Anaheim sushi maker, known as Fujisan. Kenny Sung, Fujisan’s chief executive, said the capital infusion will give it the ability to service every key metropolitan market in the United States by 2008. The company currently serves 2,500 retail outlets and club stores in 37 stores."</li> <li> The article notes: "Last week, TV producers, advertisers, business associates and local politicians gathered on Meruelo's soundstages to toast the arrival of Meruelo Media. Attendees snacked on products made by Meruelo Group companies, including sushi from its Fuji Food Products and thick-crust slices from La Pizza Loca."</li> <li> The article notes: "A sushi manufacturer violated federal labor law by seeking to compel individual arbitration of an ex-employee's proposed class action, a National Labor Relations Board judge ruled Tuesday, saying ex-NLRB member Craig Becker's recess appointment was apparently valid under the U.S. Supreme Court's reasoning in Noel Canning. Fuji Food Products Inc. ran afoul of the National Labor Relations Act when it sought to force individual arbitration of a wage-and-hour class action brought by former worker Nancy Sandra Gonzalez, Administrative Law Judge Jeffrey Wedekind said. Fuji, which bills itself as one of the nation's biggest fresh sushi makers and distributors, argued that the labor board's controversial D.R. Horton decision was incorrect, but Judge Wedekind noted that he had to follow NLRB precedent unless and until its gets reversed by the Supreme Court."</li> <li> The article notes: "Fuji Food Inc., an Anaheim maker of ready-to-eat sushi, just signed a 10-year lease for a 91,189-square-foot warehouse and office building across the Los Angeles County line in Santa Fe Springs. The lease is valued at $10.3 million. The family business, formed in 1990, plans to move its headquarters from its North Armando Street site to Santa Fe Springs, according to officials with the Irvine office of Voit Commercial Brokerage LP. ... Fuji Food sells its products under the Fujisan name. It started out making sushi for local markets and now delivers to grocery stores, clubs and warehouses, primarily in Southern California. The new warehouse already includes a food-processing facility."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Fuji Food to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 04:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)</ul>
 * I consider Fuji Food notable because it has received significant coverage in reliable sources. It is one of the largest suppliers of prepackaged sushi according to Health and Fortune. It is a supplier for Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, Costco, Walgreens, Target Corporation, Sam's Club, and 7-Eleven. Fuji Food is owned by Alex Meruelo's Meruelo Group holding company. If the company is found to be non-notable, it should be merged to Meruelo's article instead of deleted. Cunard (talk) 04:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To discuss Sources mentioned by Cunard

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  06:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep the article needs improvement, but Cunard's sources show this meets GNG. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Which policy is best applicable here though? Because since my analysis below, policy is given a heavier aspect especially given the WP:INDISCRIMINATE coverage, which outweighs GNG. SwisterTwister   talk  23:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Which policy is best applicable here though? Because since my analysis below, policy is given a heavier aspect especially given the WP:INDISCRIMINATE coverage, which outweighs GNG. SwisterTwister   talk  23:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per GNG and that Fortune article d.g. L3X1  (distænt write)   )evidence(  15:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Delete, The Fortuneand "Health" articles each contain a one sentence mention within a long general article. That is not substantial coverage. The various business journals exists for reprinting press releases. That's not independent coverage.  The LATimes articles is a cross between a press release and trivial society coverage. The NLRB case is an isolated incident,, and does not justify an article. Not a single one of the sources is both independent and substantial. I greatly respect Cunard's ability to find sources of even the most trivial sort, and when the sources he can find are no better than this, there's clearly nothing else.  DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The articles from Crain's Chicago Business and Los Angeles Business Journal are independent and substantial. There is no policy or guideline stating that business journals are not independent sources for businesses. Crain's Chicago Business notes that Fuji Food is "[t]he nation's largest provider and distributor of prepacked sushi" and that "Fuji Food's products are carried in about 6,000 U.S. stores, including airport vendors, convenience stores, grocery and large-format club stores in 45 states. Its customers include Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, Costco, Walgreen, Target, Sam's Club and 7-Eleven." A major supplier that has received significant coverage in multiple reputable publications is clearly notable. Cunard (talk) 07:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Note to closing admin. It appears that many editors do not understand the policies and guidelines on sources that meet the criteria to establish notability and many make the mistake of stating a source is "notable" (which it might well be) which is a completely different criteria for establishing notability for the "topic" in question. For example, above has stated that the article in the Los Angeles Business Journal is an "independent source" (correct, the "publisher" is independent) and substantial (OK, lets go along with that). What he fails to point out is that the article fails the criteria for establishing notability because the article almost completely relies on direct quotations from the president of Fuji Food or their owners or "anonymous" company employees and therefore fails both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Similarly, the Chicago Business article (sure, reliable, independent source) is a regurgitated Press Release from Fuji Foods and also contains quotes the company CEO - in fact the entire article relies exclusively on the company for facts and info and therefore that reference also fails both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. In fact, *all* of the references provided fall foul of either one or the other policy or guideline for establishing notability. Not one is "intellectually independent" and meets the criteria.  -- HighKing ++ 17:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Regurgitated press releases from a reliable publisher are WP:RS reliable sources. Publishers do not need to source information to Mars to practice independence in their journalistic ethics.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually WP:CORPDEPTH says any primary-involved sources can and will still be discountered as they're not genuinely independent. SwisterTwister   talk  23:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete -- sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH; not every large company is notable. Sure, companies do PR and get press but this does not help with notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete the sources the Cunard provided speak for themselves: they are not the coverage that we would expect under WP:CORPDEPTH as half of them are passing mentions and the other half are run of the mill coverage of corporate funding that simply don't meet the standards we hold companies to. GNG is not met here as we don't have sustained and substantial independent coverage of the topic. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  07:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as it fails to have the reliably sourced in-depth coverage needed, see WP:CORP. I believe TonyBallioni said it quite well above, no need to repeat. --Bejnar (talk) 08:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: Here is another source I found about the subject:<ol><li></li> The article provides an extensive discussion of Fuji Food's operations and adds analysis like noting "Rancho Dominguez-based AFC Corp.'s Southern Tsunami brand" is a Fuji Foods competitor: "Franklin Lee and his wife, Cindy, are the founders of Fuji Food Product Inc., an Anaheim company that makes packaged sushi under the Fujisan brand. Products include traditional sashimi and rice sushi, cut rolls such as California rolls and hand rolled sushi. Fuji Food sells in 37 states at more than 2,500 stores, including Albertsons, Costco Wholesale, BJ's Wholesale Club, Ralphs and Vons. The company has 400 workers and competes with Rancho Dominguez-based AFC Corp.'s Southern Tsunami brand. Products are made at four U.S. plants and distributed from 15 centers with a fleet of 120 refrigerated trucks. The company buys seafood from Asian and American fishing companies, as well as other ingredients such as rice, dried seaweed and vegetables from local vendors." The article also provides an extensive discussion of the company's origins, founding, and history: "The Lees came from Taiwan in 1976 and first opened a furniture store in San Diego. In 1985, they took a stab at restaurants by opening three sushi buffets. In 1991, the Lees sought to expand into catering and contacted their local Price Club store, now part of Costco Wholesale Corp. The Lees oversaw their restaurants, prepared sushi at their plant and delivered orders in the morning. They worked late into the night and slept in their cars before delivering sushi to Price Club. Cindy Lee and her daughter. Christine, staged sushi demonstrations to push sales. When the company started selling sushi at other Price Clubs around San Diego County, the Lees closed their restaurants and focused on Fuji Food. By 1996, they were selling sushi at Vons and Albertsons. Christine Lee and her husband, high school sweetheart Kenny Sung, joined the company full time in 1998 and expanded to Orange and Los Angeles counties. They moved Fuji Food to Anaheim once they started selling in Central and Northern California and Nevada."</li></ol> Combined with the Crain's Chicago Business and Los Angeles Business Journal articles, this Orange County Business Journal article is establishes that Fuji Food passes Notability. Cunard (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment about merging to Alex Meruelo: Fuji Food is owned by Alex Meruelo's Meruelo Group holding company. If the company is found to be non-notable, it should be merged to Meruelo's article instead of deleted per WP:PRESERVE and per the Deletion policy subsection of Deletion policy. Cunard (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * None of this changes my analysis above. Fluff pieces in business journals designed to promote local businesses do not amount to meeting our notability standards. This also counts as simply one source from the same organization under the GNG since you've already provided another piece from this publisher. I also see no convincing argument why this non-notable company has anything worth merging in the article at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:CORP and WP:GNG, sources seem independent in my opinion. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * None of these are actual fundamental policies which in fact outweigh notability guidelines, what comments have you about that in considerations to how policies apply? SwisterTwister   talk  05:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment as a keep !voter. I generally support keeping any companies with a physical nexus of presence in most of a large country or multiple small countries, as long as they meet a minimum revenue level. The need for at least two sources is for verifiability, not for notability. The references appear to be either (a) from the business press; or (b) trivial references in the mainstream press; but that is more than sufficient IMO. If the holding company has its own page I would support a consensus merge; I don't support a merge or redirect to Alex Meruelo. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Delete arguments such as "I get to tell reliable publishers which articles they publish that are reliable sources" make me wonder what is going on here; but meanwhile, the standard for GNG lies somewhere in the range of two good sources to lots of sources with minimal amounts of significant coverage.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as the one fundamental policy used here above all suggestive notability guidelines is WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Deletion policy because they all contain the question: "Is promotionalism beneficial for an encyclopedia?" and the answer is "No, and it's unacceptable here" and the WikimediaFoundation has noticeably agreed that we are not a vehicle of promotional and there's no exceptions. The coverage has been examined and found to be promotional, even when claimed to extensively informative, because such publications as Orange Business Journal (and another local business journal alongside it, and in fact another about a local promotion stunt), Register or Crain's are, as noted by WP:ORGIND, indiscriminate publishers for companies, and are only extended the company's involvement in it, but that's certainly not what we are here nor should we suggest to anyone that we are. The Law360 cannot be considered as significant coverage since it's about a law case entirely, not about how the company is notable in its own skin. The Fortune is a classic example of a corporate blurb, simply meaning to say who they are, which is in turn, sometimes easily lifted from a press release (where it's located, numbers, products, etc.) and that's immediate to see because the Crain's offered above actually mentions this word by word. When the bulk of this is from indiscriminate local business webhosts, it only shows the company is skilled in emphasizing its PR agents, not the fact there's meaningful and profound coverage, which is (although quoted above), what the GNG needs. "two good sources to lots of sources with minimal amounts of significant coverage" is what is suggested for the possibility in notability, but not the undeniably instant-seal. Indiscriminate and promotions are exactly what is supported in deletion, not reconsidered twice to rearrange. SwisterTwister   talk  05:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Again I wonder, "what is going on here". We are here to build an encycledia.  We shamelessly report and if neutral reporting promotes we are indifferent that it does so.  If instead we are biased about promotion, the moneyed interests may eventually conclude that they being unfairly targeted and should intervene.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "if [reporting] promotes, we are indifferent" is actually why we would delete given Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a soapbox, therefore we"re not a servicing host, that's what makes us an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister   talk  18:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep largely per Cunard's sources, which meet WP:CORPDEPTH. I would also add this article from The Daily Meal, which focuses entirely on this company. Unlike a lot of articles, which should be deleted, the sources make clear that the company is not run of the mill (e.g. a lot of startups), but at the top of its field. Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that publication is exactly unacceptable as by policy WP:INDISCRIMINATE since it's a trade publication focusing on consumer-targeted information, which is exactly what WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG maintain are unacceptable, see quote: "advertising and marketing materials by, about, or on behalf of the organization, 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". Based on "focuses entirely on the company" and yet this is suppose to be an independent coverage piece? That wouldn't be countered as genuinely independent. In fact, I visited the link above and all other parts except one (company profile information) were simply words about what the company business is, how is that in-depth coverage? SwisterTwister   talk  06:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The Daily Meal article is a very nice find that demonstrates Fuji Food's significant impact: "While pre-packaged sushi might seem like a sketchy enterprise, it’s actually a well-organized (and lucrative) business. Fuji Food, for example, pioneered supermarket sushi back in the 1990s, and today they supply fresh sushi to more than 4,000 major supermarkets in 44 states (including Albertson’s, Costco, A&P, BJ’s, Trader Joe’s, and Safeway), producing more than one million packages of sushi and other fresh Asian food per month from four central kitchens." Thank you, ! Cunard (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm the nom, I haven't voted, and I won't.  This seems like a toss-up to me and an interesting discussion.  There's something distinctive about promotional written copy, though, just as a prose style.  The sound of PR.  It's unfailingly positive.  It's straightforward, logical, mostly impersonal, a certain flow with no hard technical language, a sense of being approved by lawyers, and PR always explicitly comes back to what it's selling.  That's what I'm hearing in these quotes.  In truly independent-minded coverage I'd look for language that departs from PR language.  Unflattering detail, a quote from an opposing view, depth, any hint of criticism.  You know?  Does anybody see any criticism of Fuji Food in these sources?  --Lockley (talk) 07:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'll also comment this time in saying the history itself shows repeated occasions of removed and restored advertising (that's considering the last 10 years of article existence) which alone would be a surefire concern in WP:NPOV, therefore we would absolutely, unquestionably and confirmingly need assurance it would not happen again, which by the Keeps, hasn't been the case. SwisterTwister   talk  23:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - The sources existing, as well as the those provided in this discussion, do not provide the type of in-depth coverage to show WP:GNG, not to mention WP:CORPDEPTH.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 01:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Cunard has proven the general notability guidelines have been met.  D r e a m Focus  14:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * However several leading policies have been shown to support deletion and the need for it versus suggestive "article possibilities" guidelines. Have you any explanations about why we shouldn't account for the policies? The policies, as a reminder, are WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:Deletion policy and WP:Indiscriminate. SwisterTwister   talk  17:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You are still arguing total nonsense in deletion discussions. No matter how many times people have explained to you in the past how WP:NOTABILITY works, you just ignore them and keep on arguing nonstop to delete valid articles simply because you don't like them.   D r e a m Focus  19:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep This article can be improved, references sources are enough for notability. This should not be deleted. Bhavz90 (talk) 09:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC) Striking CU confirmed sock per Sockpuppet investigations/Pshibe TonyBallioni (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * By which policies? Because the sources analyzed above were found to be clear company-rehashed information. By WP:What Wikipedia is not, "Objectionable content can be deleted if [against our Wikipedia goals]". To add, the history shows clear attempts to improve yet still promotional therefore the objectionable still exists.  SwisterTwister   talk  17:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment -- the sources above would produce nothing more than a directory listing. There's no transformational analysis as would be expected of secondary sources. The coverage listed only confirms that the company exists, how many employees it has, how many locations it serves, etc. This content can just as effectively be housed on the company web site, and an encyclopedia entry is not required. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 9 July 2017 (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.