Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rojam

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. (non-admin closure) Sheldybett (talk) 10:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Rojam

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Rojam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This company, which once operated a single nightclub, has extant sources that are just barely enough to prove it exists and isn't a hoax, but certainly not enough to demonstrate notability. A basic BEFORE (Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, newspapers.com) is somewhat foiled by the fact that "Rojam" is a better known as a type of Toyota custom mod kit. But, insofar it's possible to tell, it fails the BEFORE. Chetsford (talk) 10:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Keep: Hi there. I put a lot of work in to adding more sources to this article after it was recently listed as proposed deletion. I removed the tag in line with having resolved the issues. Having done that, I do not appreciate your mischaracterisation of the work. Factual inaccuracies include:

1. "This company": it is in fact a series of companies operating multinationally (Japan, HK, China), one of which is stock listed on a major international stock market and therefore having numerous investors.
2. "A single nightclub": the article contains cited references to multiple nightclubs, one of which was quite famous in its day (enough to host multiple major international acts, some of which are cited), in addition to various music and entertainment interests.
3. "notability": A stock market listed (also known as "public company") on a major stock exchange is by definition notable. Similarly, an early operation in Shanghai's music history is by definition notable, as it is now a major world city.
4. BEFORE: There was very little information about China available in English at the time of these activities, which is why Google, English newspapers and published English books would not reference it. It will be listed in some period guides to Shanghai, but they are unlikely to be indexed.

In short - yes this is clearly notable place, I have put lots of work in to it. The correct manner to enhance such an article is to do better (less lazy, monolingual, online-only) research. prat (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

A stock market listed (also known as "public company") on a major stock exchange is by definition notable. That's incorrect. WP:LISTED does not set-out that any company with a publicly traded stock is automatically notable. There was very little information about China available in English at the time of these activities, which is why Google, English newspapers and published English books would not reference it. While I question the accuracy of the statement that there was "very little information about China available" in the early 2000s, WP:BEFORE requires only a basic search by the nom which I have met. You are, however, free to independently engage in a complex or archival records search, or to provide offline or non-English RS. However, this does require demonstration RS exist, not simply assertion they exist. Chetsford (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:LISTED as the company is a constituent of the primary Hong Kong stock exchange, which is sufficient to indicate notability as argued in WP:AFD/C.C.P.C.P.

I note the umbrella company has been called Media Asia Group for a while now, just FYI, discussion of subsidiary businesses in the article is fine, but the title should be changed. — shard t 14:00, 30 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.68.103 (talk)

@86.186.68.103: That appears to be a "different" Media Asia at best. I remember during my Hong Kong film fandom phase watching a bunch of Media Asia films produced in the early 90s, before this article's subject was founded in 1996 and/or 1998. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Although I'm half-tempted to say TNT delete given that a quick Google search indicated that the things this company is known for are things our article currently gives the impression of carefully glossing over. According to both this and this its establishment was the cause of a downturn in Komuro's career, and the latter source says it was founded in 1996 as a joint venture with Rupert Murdoch called "TK News" before being rebranded (the former source dates this to 1998, although it implies they were separate entities) as "Rojam Entertainment". Conversely, of the sources currently cited in the article, this one doesn't mention Rojam Entertainment and doesn't hint that Media Asia was ever known by any other name, while saying it was listed in 2001, long before this source was published under the Rojam name. Nothing in this source nor this one indicates that the identically named night club is linked to the entertainment company, although a user comment on the former implies that a now-dead link to the official rojam.com website mentions the club. I couldn't find any sources indicating that the company was founded in 1988, although this kinda leads me to suspect that the 1988 date relates to a separate company called Media Asia. This kind of clumsy editing is frankly shocking coming from any experienced editor, let alone an admin, but those issues are matters for ANI, or perhaps ArbCom; the topic is notable, so the article should be kept, then blanked and rewritten. I wouldn't oppose redirecting to Tetsuya Komuro in the meantime. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Guess I should ping Pratyeka (talk · contribs), since it's kinda slimy to say things like the above "behind an editor's back". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, I am pretty much disgusted with community on this site. If you see an issue, mark it or improve it, don't start a bureaucratic process to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I agree this should probably be kept but split. Just don't delete content I've spent time adding in response to deletion. prat (talk) 05:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm open to a redirect as per Hijiri 88. Chetsford (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2019 (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.