Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese companies


 * 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Japanese companies

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Such a list has no encyclopedic value. This is what categories are for, and numerous ones already exist for Japanese companies. Zubdub 05:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The list is unannotated, and really ought to have a bit more than simply a list of names, but as long as there are redlinks in the list it is doing something a category cannot do. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input Sjakkalle, but who will see the red links? I don't envision a lot of people going to that article just to read a list of company names. :-) And do all of the "red link" companies really exist? References? It seems like fertile ground for vandals to me - creating ficticious company names to add to such lists. Zubdub 06:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep ... or make a reorganized list. It would be more useful to separate the companies by category-- electronics, auto manufacturers, groceries, etc.   I agree that it's subject to vandalism, and additions and edits should be restricted.  Otherwise, we probably will see names pop up like "Teriyaki Beef Co." or "Cheapashita Electronics".  Mandsford 12:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- --  pb30 < talk > 12:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Doesn't the category Companies of Japan cover this? -Vcelloho 15:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete' per WP:NOT. The problem I have with the "has red links, categories can't do that" justification with this type of list is that there is no oversight to make sure that redlinked companies inserted in the list have any kind of notability and should ever be an article. Much along the lines of what Zubdub is saying. There is no reason to encourage the creation of articles for companies that may not even exist, and the appropriate forum to encourage article creation is WP:AFC or WP:REQUEST, not redlinks in a directory-style article.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions.   -- Endroit 17:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep — This article is just one of many similar lists belonging to the Category:Lists of companies by country. There may be room for improvements, and similar guidelines should apply to all articles within this category, but deletion would be premature.  The concept of "Lists of companies by country", in itself, is an encyclopedic one, and that's what makes this article notable.--Endroit 17:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Endroit and Mandsford. It may improve the usefulness of the list (and distinction from the category) to make the list into a table (or tables) where the Japanese is given for the company name as well. This would significantly increase the usefulness of the list. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've started doing this so everyone can see what I was suggesting. If anyone else wants to help converting the list, please do so. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - I was leaning toward delete as redundant to Category:Companies of Japan, but given Lists of companies it seem appropriate. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Additional rationale - I nominated this list for deletion and would like to put forward additional reasons I believe this (and other such lists) don't warrant their own articles.
 * I have also proposed Lists of companies for deletion. If my proposal for this country-specific deletion resulted in a delete, all the other country's company lists would be next. This is my test case.
 * The changes recently made to the list to include company names in the native language do nothing but replicate what should already be in the wikipedia article for each company. The changes look nice, but exactly what real "use" does it add? If I want to see "Sony" in kanji, I'll look at the Sony article.
 * I claim that such a list represents a form of original research and does not satisfy Verifiability. It can be argued that the linked-to articles represent sufficient sourcing, but that does not apply to red-linked companies having no article on wikipedia. Where is the reference providing proof that a given name represents an actual company? Kazu's Lawn Mowing Service might be a real company, but is it notable, is it a real small business in some small town in some prefecture somewhere, or did I just make it up? It seems to me there is no end to the minor insignificant companies that could be added to such a list.
 * If, then, the desire is to only have notable companies on such a list (companies having wikipedia articles) then we're back to this being nothing more than a repetition of a category. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zubdub (talk • contribs).
 * Kazu's Lawn Mowing Service is such a bogus example. Never heard of it, and will never make this list.  If you try to add some obscure stuff like that to this list, I'll delete it myself!--Endroit 23:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that list was only for company names that you personally had heard of. Zubdub 23:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: If the list is changed as I'm doing it, your arguments will be invalid. Adding the Japanese makes the list infinitely more useful, and makes it so it's not simply a duplicate of a category (which doesn't have the Japanese). ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Useful for what? I'm not trying to be obnoxious, I just don't see any real "use". As I stated above, if I want to know a company's name in the native language, I will go to that company's article. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. Zubdub 22:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Based on your comments here and your contributions, I'm guessing you have very little interest in anything Japan-related, so of course a list of Japanese companies (no matter the format) would be of little use or interest to you. You may not see any use in having a listing that lists both English and Japanese, but for those who are actually interested in finding a Japanese company (and any article about it), having a list which shows both makes it much easier to find the company in question as a search can be performed using either. And having them both in one place makes it much more useful than a category (which serves a similar, but different purpose), especially if you only know the Japanese title and are trying to find the English article (if any). This has happened to me several times, and a list like this would have made that much easier. Also, as I indicated above, I'm in the middle of changing the format of the list to make this possible. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, sigh right back at you. The only reason I chose the list of Japanese companies is because it was the first such list I came across. You state that such a list helps you "find" a company (and any article about it). I disagree. Consider for a moment that, without this list, your search would find any existing article about said company without the needless step of hunting down the name on that long list. Secondly, rather than adding various language versions of the company name to the list, add it to the article about the company. THAT is where it will most benefit readers.Zubdub 02:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't have to hunt it down. Just use the find feature in your browser once you're on the page. And this list is useful for those companies without an article yet, as Endroit indicates. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * For the English Wikipedia articles that are not yet written (and show up as red links here), the majority appears to have links in the Japanese Wikipedia.--Endroit 02:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment : I'm adding interwiki-ja links.  (I've started from letter Z and am working backwards).  This greatly enhances interwiki cross-referencing, for those who wish to access the Japanese Wikipedia for further information.--Endroit 23:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nihonjoe. One thing I like about Wikipedia is its global view, rather than the American tradition of not venturing past the fifty states.  "Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages" might apply to Tsutomu's Barber Shop, but not to large manufacturing or service corporations.  Wikipedia's not the yellow pages, it's "TV Guide".  In addition, I can search de:Wikipedia for a German corporation and translate, but searching the Japanese wiki is tough-- even if I knew the name of the corporation to begin with.  How else do I find a Russian manufacturer than to go to a list?  And what's wrong with articles about businesses?  Isn't the employer of thousands of people as worthy a topic as Coldplay's latest album? Mandsford 23:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep — The new format with the addition of the Japanese and Romaji spellings make this list a notable and useful resource. Cross links to the Japanese company articles (in Japanese) also provide a unique reference that will help researchers who may or may not be familiar with the Japanese language. NipponBill 00:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete sheesh. JJL 02:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The added language names are good, and other things & arrangements can be added to a list that cannot be done as a category.DGG 04:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG and others. Neier 06:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep — extremely useful and notable list. I also agree with Nihonjoe, Endroit, Mandsford, NipponBill, DGG, and several of the other editors. ··· 巌流 ? · talk to ganryuu 17:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - My official vote.
 * Arguments for usefulness of name translations are misguided. Editors should spend their time adding those to the actual company articles than to this list. There is no point in "finding" a company on this list in order to "find" the wikipedia article on that company. The company article itself should be improved with the useful name translations.
 * For example, look at the Joan Chen article. It includes multiple language versions of her name so that a search for her using any of those languages finds her actual article. No need for a list to "help" find her.
 * The red-linked company names lack Verifiability. They could be non-notable or fictitious. Easy vandal territory. Zubdub 23:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment — WP:V is a lousy excuse for these handful of trigger-happy people, going around deleting articles rather devising ways to make them more encyclopedic. For example, WP:V can be easily resolved by adding notations such as:  Sony, tyo: 6758.  Why destroy the article rather than improve it?  Anyways, the new interwiki-JA links help with WP:V already, and makes this article encyclopedic.--Endroit 23:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions.   -- Endroit 01:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT and Zubdub's comments. Anything of value that could be included in the list can just as simply be added to the articles for each company.  All companies with an article should already be in Category:Companies of Japan, and major public companies would be covered on List of members of the Tokyo Stock Exchange.  I'd also add that I'm working on setting up a sub-project or task force of WikiProject Business and Economics to work on company articles, and would think it would be much more efficient to set up a process through that for the addition of companies that are missing, rather than indiscriminate lists throughout Wikipedia that, as mentioned above, could be full of companies that are non-existent or non-notable. --Richc80 02:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: This is NOT an "indiscriminate list".  It is a list of notable Japanese companies, albeit we don't have a specific criteria yet, for listing.  Consider:  "Category:Lists of companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange".  If we were to make a similar "Lists of companies on the Tokyo Stock Exchange", the list would be similar to THIS list we already have here.  However, I believe people are more interested in finding companies that are actually from (or headquartered in) Japan, rather than whether they are listed in the Tokyo Stock Exchange.  I believe it is only a matter of determining the acceptable criteria, either for WikiProject Business and Economics, or for WikiProject Japan.  I suggest that "Tokyo Stock Exchange" would be one acceptable criterion.  Another criterion can be an existing listing in the Japanese Wikipedia plus another extra qualification for notability.  Any one of these criteria would be sufficient qualification to make this list.--Endroit 03:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "If we were to make a similar "Lists of companies on the Tokyo Stock Exchange", the list would be similar to THIS list we already have here." We already have List of members of the Tokyo Stock Exchange. "However, I believe people are more interested in finding companies that are actually from (or headquartered in) Japan". Hence, the already existing Category:Companies of Japan. Zubdub 04:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Quick review... List of members of the Tokyo Stock Exchange is a non-list. For example Sony is not even listed.  Perhaps we can merge the 2 lists?--Endroit 04:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So List of members of the Tokyo Stock Exchange should be updated to be accurate certainly, but should remain its own list. --Richc80 04:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * For most readers, the List of members of the Tokyo Stock Exchange is of less value than the List of Japanese companies. The List of Japanese companies is maintained by WP:JA, is checked for accuracy against the Japanese Wikipedia, and will be guaranteed to receive the full attention of WP:JA.  People should face up to the fact that the List of Japanese companies is already significantly more notable than the List of members of the Tokyo Stock Exchange.  You can even thrash the latter (which is junk anyways) and replace it with the former, and you will have a VERY respectable List of members of the Tokyo Stock Exchange, after few modifications.  You should be making good use of our efforts and cooperating, rather than wasting them.  Assume good faith.--Endroit 07:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The faith of the editors of this list is not in question, I'm sure that the creation and maintenance of it is a genuine effort on their part. It's great to hear that WP:JA is taking the time to keep this list up to date, but I don't think that invalidates any of the arguments put forward here for deletion.  While you may feel that the list could become "VERY respectable"; why spend your time trying to keep it up to date when the equivalent Category would be automatically updated with any changes and provides the same value?  A to-do page could also be created within the project to list those companies not yet added from the Japanese Wikipedia, it doesn't need to be in the mainspace.  Just seems to be un-necessary additional work and an additional step in the process for maintaining company information here.  --Richc80 12:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The lists within Category:Lists of companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange has some of the same problems as the List of Japanese companies, namely that there are too many red links, and so the "editors should spend their time adding those to the actual company articles", according to your logic. According to your logic, articles should be written for each company listed on the NYSE rather than maintain lists for them, and hence a category for NYSE companies will suffice.  Then there's the difficulty of maintenance, and the possibility of vandalism.  What's so different here?  Tell me you're not being hypocritical by applying different set of standards for NYSE.  Explain to me what the difference is.--Endroit 14:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My last comment on this debate as I feel there is sufficient information from both sides for people to make their mind up either way. I've never set standards for NYSE, I've never even in fact looked at those lists until today.  In my mind though producing a list of companies on any stock exchange is different from a list of companies based in a specific country because:
 * Scope clearly defined (how do we know when all existing companies in a country have been added to the list?)
 * Allows the inclusion of companies not notable enough for Wikipedia (for the stock exchange notability does not define them being part of the list, for countries the logical inclusion criteria is companies notable enough for WP:CORP, otherwise an argument could be made that the list will become the next yellow pages.
 * Adds value by incorporating additional information that cannot easily be found in each company article (for example, including date of Initial Public Offering would allow someone to quickly determine the first company added to that exchange, rather than having to go through each article. I would agree that this allows a case to be made for, say, a List of the 10 oldest companies in Japan)
 * Maintenance and vandalism would still be a problem, but would easily be verifiable (company names & ticker symbols can typically be checked on the exchange's website, but wouldn't it take some time to definitively say that, for example, Teriyaki Beef Co. is not legitimately a Japanese company?)
 * Finally, I agree with the statement made earlier that maybe the discussion on appropriate company lists is larger than just this one example, but regardless I don't think a list just by country is part of that future. It's scope will either be so well defined to make the list redundant, or not well defined enough causing the list to become yet another (un-encyclopedic) directory of businesses --Richc80 17:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have added a column called "TSE" for letters T thru Z. (If you like it, we'll add it to the rest of this list).  That should help resolve any WP:V concerns mentioned here.  This is consistent with all the lists within Category:Lists of companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange.--Endroit 16:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Another suggestion: We can use the Forbes Global 2000 list, filtered by "Japan" as another criterion.--Endroit 17:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The "TSE" link (to Bloomberg) does wonders. It can be easily cross-referenced with the adjacent interwiki-JA link (in Japanese) and the article in English, for ultimate accuracy.  Makes WP:V (verification) simpler.  I'll go ahead and start adding "TSE" links to all entries, starting from letter "Z" and going backwards again.--Endroit 00:37, 17 June 2007 (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.