Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix Electric Co., Ltd.


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Phoenix Electric Co., Ltd.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is another case of obvious speedy and PROD but considering it has existed since March 2009 after a SPA started it and with almost no activity since then, a nomination is better and my searches simply found nothing better than a few business listings at Books. Wow, what an excellent article! SwisterTwister  talk  07:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete There is so little here, and what there is is largely nonsensical mistranslation. (How can a company in Tokyo "do Chapter 11"?) Imaginatorium (talk) 08:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep First, this was a publicly traded company, with its stock listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange (--it was listed in the First Section, which is only for large corporations), the Japanese equivalent of the NYSE. It's no mom and pop company. As WP:LISTED says, "There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above." In fact, it adds: "Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion." That said, there is sufficient independent coverage out there to pass notability criteria:, , , , , , , etc. What makes it a bit harder to find articles is that the company has changed its name to Helios Techno Holding Co., Ltd., which has also taken over its slot on the TSE (number 6927). Thus more recent coverage tends to be about that company, not about Phoenix (, , , , , etc.; in English: , , etc.). Phoenix now exists as a subsidiary and a brand name. Not only does the article need to be updated, but perhaps it might be best to change the name of the article. The Japanese Wikipedia has articles on both companies, but the Helios article (ja:ヘリオス_テクノ_ホールディング), basically treats it as a continuation of Phoenix. Anyway, this easily passes WP:CORP. Michitaro (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - per Michitaro, however it needs a whole lot of work. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 13:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Michitaro and Mosaic. But yeah, this article needs tremendous work. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Move to draft or user space. Yes, I believe it's notable, but Michitaro's work should have gone into the actual article. That thing is an insult to our readers in its current state, basically nonsense.  Sandstein   21:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Having previously added material to an article during an AfD only to see it deleted, I usually wait until the AfD has concluded before I add it. If you are concerned about the need for it to be added now, you are free to do so yourself. Michitaro (talk) 04:36, 29 October 2015 (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.