- 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. Cirt (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- USC Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Very short article, no assertion of notability. Speedy declined, prod removed. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I searched for sources and was unable to find anything. "USC Limited" searches mostly come up with hits unrelated to this company. I barely find evidence that this company even exists: [1]. Cazort (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rayjameson (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)I wrote this a few hours ago, but don't know if anyone read it. (I may have inadvertently put the post in the wrong place). Here's what I had to say: Rayjameson (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Dear Wikipedia Administrators, I have read the message regarding the possibility of speedy deletion of the USC Limited article. I realize that though I have noted the company's website as a reference, I have not noted any other sources, such as newspaper articles. I am certain there is some information published on USC Limited somewhere, and will try to find other sources (when I have time). The USC Limited website is in Japanese, so, for a person unable to read Japanese, it may be difficult to understand the significance of the company in Japanese-American relations. However, if one does read the website, one would understand that USC Limited is significant in that it is a company that has imported products for several decades from the US, despite the fact that the US has had a significant trade deficit with Japan for many years. There has been much emotional political debate concerning trade relations between Japan and the US. USC Limited is an anomaly in that it is a Japanese trading company that relies on imports from the US (rather than exporting to the US) for its well-being. If you desire to delete the page, that is OK for now, but I definitely plan to work on it some more, find more references (if possible), and, if need be, point to the significance of having the names of the presidents of the company noted. (Though I could live with not having them noted.) In any case, the first president and founder of the company is deceased. The current president of the company has his name (and photo) prominently noted on the company website(http://www.usccom.co.jp/aisatu/aisatu.html) - which is a public document, accessible to anyone. In closing, let me thank you for your comments and concern. Your input is very helpful in editing wikipedia.Rayjameson (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Only some businesses are notable enough for Wikipedia articles. Generally, what this means is, not only that the existence of the business, and the statements about it in the article, are verifiable. It also requires that the article on the business be verified by independent, edited reliable sources. The way these policies relate specifically to businesses has been set forth in a specific notability guideline that relates to them.
Under these policies and guidelines, a company's own website is not in itself enough; it is published by the company itself, and therefore not independent. Local newspaper coverage generally does not qualify, either: the actions of employers may be locally newsworthy, but this does not necessarily translate into sufficient notice in the wider world. Trade publications may not be enough, either; many reproduce press releases (not independent) with minimal editing or verification; and some of them, like local newspapers, do not reach a wide readership.
These are the sorts of things that would need to be added in order to make an article about this business meet the notability guideline for businesses. You are of course free to continue to edit the article to add these things to it, if they are in fact available. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As requested I am replying here. I certainly do not object to Japanese language sources (I've occasionally argued to keep articles on the basis of foreign-language sources when ones in English are not available). But I don't know how to search for Japanese articles, nor do I know any Japanese. I do know, however, that the company page is not usable to argue notability as it is not independent of the company. (Read WP:N for clarification.) Smerdis of Tlön explained this better than I could. I welcome more sources but we need to find independent, reliable sources if we are going to keep this article. Cazort (talk) 23:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Smerdis of Tlön and Cazort for your input. I can obtain business licenses/registrations through Tokyo govt. for this company, also poss. to access other documents, but all this will take time/money. I may have to give up on this one and pick it up later. I'd still like to write an article on USC Limited and think it would be considered notable after I do. Once again, thanks. Sincerely,Rayjameson (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Business licenses/registrations would prove existence of the company (existence has not been questioned), but not notability. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, thanks...but business registration would probably note company's assets. If co. assets are large, does that help constitute notability? Also, company has been involved in legal action, legal records should be available. Depending on legal action, I assume it might constitute notability. Thanks for help you've given this newbee. Sincerely, 61.192.74.228 (talk) 05:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Rayjameson (talk) 07:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Only some businesses are notable enough for Wikipedia articles. Generally, what this means is, not only that the existence of the business, and the statements about it in the article, are verifiable. It also requires that the article on the business be verified by independent, edited reliable sources. The way these policies relate specifically to businesses has been set forth in a specific notability guideline that relates to them.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As the originator of this article I guess I hafta acknowledge the prospect of this article staying looks pretty grim. As a new user, I want to say that, thanks to the experienced users/administrators who have given their input on this article I have learned. Please do not feel your time/energy was wasted. I don't have easy access to documents now, that'd verify possible notability, but I thought this co. wud b notable cuz 1: The company imports a lg. amt. of products fm. US and Europe. This is in contrast to most Japa. trading co's. that export to US and Europe (thus the lg. trade deficit for EC countries and US w/Japan). 2: The founder and long-time president of co. (till his death) was a Japanese-American who'd been interned during WWII. After his internment ended he successfully lobbied US govt. to allow loans to former internees so they cud reassimilate back into society....(Also, my apologies for neglecting to sign my previous post of 05:41, 29 May 2009) Rayjameson (talk) 06:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.