Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kodenshi America, Inc.


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Kodenshi America, Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Not notable, fails WP:CORP, no meaningful GNews/GHits, no reliable sources found. Brought to AfD after creator and IP keep removing CSD tags. GregJackP  Boomer!  02:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC) KEEP I don't understand how closed of a community that Wikipedia is. This article is about the American Office of a near 1 Billion Dollar Company. It explains their impact to the environment with the RoHs certification, the history of the parent companies. There are plenty of sources posted under references, please look. Many are independent. I really don't see what the issue was. I removed tags only because I entered stuff on the talk page, confirming we didn't see it that way and/or made appropriate changes. From my understanding that is something we can do. Instead of threatening and making our lives difficult, it would be a lot easier for you to help us get something up to your high level of standard instead of just deleting our hard research. That would make more sense and be more productive. People have a right to know who Kodenshi America is. They are listed on several other Wikipedia pages such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_device_fabrication http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ACompact_Disc%2FArchive_2 http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B4%D9%86%E2%80%8C%DB%8C%D8%A7%D9%86%DA%AF?match=pl Search for Kodenshi and you will find them or their parts listed on all those pages. It only makes sense to have them listed in Wikipedia. Thank you for listening to me and for consideration. Dstrausser83 (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - of the refs listed in the article, the 5 www.auk.co.kr refs do not mention Kodenshi at all, 2 are self published (www.kodenshi.co.jp), www.etnews.com is a trivial mention of the parent company in an article that focuses on a sensor, www.ceatec.com is an exhibitor listing, and www.rohsguide.com is a compliance article that also does not mention Kodenshi at all. None are reliable sources that discuss the subject of the article, Kodenshi America. People may have a right to know about Kodenshi, but that does not mean that Wikipedia is the proper place. Unless you can show notability in reliable sources, the article should be deleted. GregJackP   Boomer!  11:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

KEEP (Comment) - Had you took time to actually read this article and not just delete it, you will find that the references listed for www.auk.co.kr are valid as they show the product line for Kodenshi America, Inc., because AUK Corp is the parent company of Kodenshi America, Inc. The sources at Kodenshi.co.jp are not self published as this article is for the American Company of Kodenshi America,Inc., the Kodenshi.co.jp is done by the Japanese Company. The etnews.com site is valid because Kodenshi America, Inc. develops sensors. Please be knowledgeable about the subject you are trying to delete. The etnews.com article is perhaps one of the most influential articles as it describes the iRobot like sensors that Kodenshi AUK Corp has developed at 50% cheaper than anybody else in Korea which is a huge step forward technology wise. This is an extremely important reference which you call a "trivial mention". Once again, had you been knowledgeable in the subject, you will have seen how important that article is and how big of news that was in the optoelectronics community. The createc.com is showing where you can visit their exhibit, and lastly the rohsguide.com reference was listed to show the standards of the RohS Certificate (i.e. the environmental impact section that we talk about in the artcle) that Kodenshi America, Inc. holds and stands by. You have failed to acknowledge the other listings that I have mentioned within Wikipedia itself showing that Kodenshi is RELEVANTLY mentioned on other Wikipedia pages and therefore deserving of a page so that readers of other articles can know what Kodenshi America, Inc. is. I do not understand why you want to censor the web. This is about being open & sharing information. I hope I have addressed your concerns. Please be more open minded. Thank you. P.S. I have updated the reference section to show the 4 Wikipedia pages as well. Dstrausser83 (talk) 05:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Please stop with personal attacks and just focus on the issues. Any ref has to be independent - see WP:RS - and a parent company (AUK) or sister company (Kodenshi.jp) are not.  They are considered to be WP:SPS.  Etnews is a trivial mention, as it discusses the Korean branch of the company, not the US branch.  Wikipedia articles cannot be used as refs to prove notability, and further, I note that the "relevant" mention was added by you just before this AfD process (see here). Finally, this is not about being "open & sharing information", it is about Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia.   GregJackP   Boomer!   14:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

KEEP (Comment) - To further assist in the "references" matter, I included some more independent links for Kodenshi & AUK. Please see references added below: Kodenshi Families: http://www.kodenshiauk.com/eng/sub02_0101.asp?KIND3=10 Stock Quote for Kodenshi America, Inc.'s Parent Company: AUK Corp http://in.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=017900.KS Company Information for Kodenshi America, Inc.'s Parent Company: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/snapshot/snapshot.asp?ticker=017900:KS Company Description for Kodenshi America, Inc.'s Parent Company: AUK Corp: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/snapshot/snapshot_article.asp?ticker=017900:KS Kodenshi America, Inc.'s Data Sheets: http://www.datasheetcatalog.com/aukcorp/1/ Thank you. Dstrausser83 (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - There is no personal attacks going on. Just pure observations of your actions. Etnews is relevant because our R&D department helped developed that and it is located in Korea with the rest of the Kodenshi family. Why are you fighting so hard? You still have not answered the questions regarding the other Wikipedia mentions of our company and people's right to know who we are. Seems like you are ignoring that. Dstrausser83 (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Struck multiple "keep" !votes from User:Dstrausser83. You're only allowed one !vote in AfD discussions, but please feel free to Comment as much as you would like! Thanks. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Sorry I didn't realize how that works. My fault. Dstrausser83 (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, spammy and poorly sourced, best to simply blow it up and start over. Parent company Kodenshi is probably notable, but I can't find decent sources in English. Hairhorn (talk) 12:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:ORG indicates we shouldn't really have articles on sub-units of an organisation unless they have substantial sources about them. It would seem to me that a better approach to developing this material would be to create an article about the parent company and any significant sourceable information on sub-units could be added to the article in the parent company.  Having said that, this article is heavily promotional / non-neutral in tone and I would worry that a parent article created by the same editor would suffer the same fate. -- Whpq (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge, rename, or delete as appropriate. We have deleted even large divisions of major corporations, per WP:OUTCOMES. Except for the best-known brand names, or wholly-owned subsidiaries of government-owned companies, we have deleted many (if not most) smaller divisions of companies. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to Kodenshi AUK (if that is the official name of the parent), adding the necessary information. I agree that our general practice is to make one good article for the parent company and all its branches.  DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I think Hairhorn gets it 100% right in saying "best to simply blow it up and start over". An article with such content as, for example, "With its three decades of experience in the electrical component field, Kodenshi AUK has been continually integrating green campaigns, in which the manufacturing of its appliaces does not release harmful chemicals into the environment. Kodenshi AUK realizes its brand value, future value, and product value with its products." is promotional. If someone can produce sources that show the parent company to be notable, then a new, non-promotional article can be written about that company. If, as DGG suggests, this article were moved, then it would have to be completely rewritten, both to address the promotion and other issues with this article, and to convert it from being focussed on one branch to being focussed on the parent company. It is difficult to see the advantage of doing it that way, rather than taking Hairhorn's suggestion. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you can read similarly cogent reasoning at Blow it up and start over, which is where I borrowed the expression from. Hairhorn (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2012 (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.