Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interac (Japan)

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. Davewild (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Interac (Japan)

Interac (Japan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The company fails WP:ORG, and fails to show why it is notable. Delete J 03:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —DAJF 05:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Per the nom; fails to assert notability. - Rjd0060 04:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep; no reason to delete, not written like an ad, 1 500 foreigners use the service to teach in Japan (establishes notability), this is the third time that the same editor has tried to delete the article. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: The article has not been written like an ad and certainly seems notable. "Interac Japan" on Google results in 1,220,000 hits, which sufficiently indicates notability. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 11:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I just googled "Interac Japan" and found 614 hits. Significantly less than your 1, 220,000. I doubt you used quotation marks around your search terms, so google found anything with the letters *interac* and *Japan*. An example is an article on MECHANISM OF INHIBITION OF REVERSE TRANSCRIPTASE BY QUINONE ANTIBIOTICS from the Japan Journal of Antibiotics that has the word *interaction* in the article. The question then, is 614 hits enough for notability? DDD DDD (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not a valid point - the company's name isn't "Interac Japan", so restricting the search to that phrase doesn't accurately reflect the number of hits. (As evidenced by the fact that the fourth hit under that combination is Dustinasby's Wikipedia talk page.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but keeping the search open to *interac japan* allows for any page with interacts, interacted, interactive and interaction to be included in the pages found. That makes the search terms too broad. It also includes pages with references to ATM/interac. Further, the second page I found on google when I search was a page for a child kidnapped by his mother and step-father, the latter who works with Interac, Japan. Quite unrelated. And so on. The google numbers are inflated and all of them are not related to the company as you/we would hope. I just don't think a quick google count is a guide to notability. My nickname "DDD DDD" gets 128,000 google hits. Time for a new wiki article, me thinks! Sorry Ckatz, you only get 9, 830. DDD DDD (talk) 11:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The same is true for any search term on Google. As editors, we have to use our discretion to sift through the results. Artificially limiting the search through the use of an inaccurate phrase such as "Interac Japan" is not the proper way to go. --Ckatz^chat_spy 11:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, we shouldn't artificially defend our argument, by saying there are 1,220,000 hits for Interac, a company that subcontracts out foreigners to schools, when we search interac japan. Because that is false.DDD DDD (talk) 12:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok you are not happy with number of ghits for "Interac Japan". Ok lets try "Interac Japan ALT" which yielded 65000 hits on Google. Interac has also been mentioned in atleast two published books, as seen here. This company is definitely notable. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 05:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to belabour the point but a google search is not the be all, end all. I also searched as you suggested, Interac+Japan+ALT, and there were indeed almost 65,000 hits. And indeed, many (not all) of those links were connected to Interac, the ALT outsourcing agency. Did you actually have a look at any of those 65,000 hits? They are not thousands and thousands of articles written about the company. Most of those links are to outdated viral job advertisements on blogs, lists, scraper sites, and so on, around the world. If anything, Interac is good at spreading the word. The gospel of the ALT according to Interac. I also only found one book reference (Gambatter means go for it...) but that was simply of list of places, companies, programmes that hire teachers. One of many. Hardly notable. Show me good, well-referenced published articles... ないと思う。DDD DDD (talk) 07:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've just spent the good part of the day searching through the google hits to find some reliable sources. I found a few links to the union websites and blogs. That's it. We're left with scraper sites and old jobs ads. Someone, please, anyone, point me in the direction of a reliably sourced article or website that discusses Interac, its relationships with its employees and contracted schools, the roles it plays in the Japanese education system, how its teachers work/interact with the schools and students... Please. I'm begging here. Is there anything out there. Or is it just blogs and job ads. How is it that a company that supposedly employs 1000+ employees in Japanese schools flies completely under the radar?DDD DDD (talk) 07:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't sarcastic, but instead a serious question: have you tried searching in Japanese? (I can't, and if you can't, I mean no offence - it's just that we're probably using the wrong version of Google to find relevant materials.) --Ckatz^chat_spy —Preceding comment was added at 09:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is a good idea. (But what is the point of using Japanese language sources for the English article?) Anyway, so I just searched for "インタラック" which is the name I took from the Japanese webpage of the company. I used the Japanese version of google to search. There were 628 hits. Here is the search page results. The first two were from the company itself. The 3rd was for a company from New Zealand called Interluck. The 4th through 6th were blogs. The 7th was from the General Union. The 8th was for Interluck, again. The 9th and tenth pages won't open. And so on.

So, the article claims more than one thousand foreign teachers work there. This came from the company's website. No independent, third party sources, in English or Japanese can be found. Now, I know I have gone on and on about this... No one has found 3rd party sources other than union papers and blogs of teachers/formers teachers critical of the company. I have argued, quite vigourously in favour of deleting the article. I would be willing to compromising on moving what exists of the article to the article on Assistant Language Teacher, as long as we can get some 3rd party sources. Any takers? Any defenders of the article willing to help out?DDD DDD (talk) 10:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Employing over 1,000 foreign teachers in Japan alone makes this company pretty notable. --DAJF 05:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep- this is actually the fourth time the nominator has tried to delete this article, an overturned speedy, two contested prods, now this-I am now calling this what it is-extremely bad faith nom by GreenJoe, and I wonder what the agenda is. Chris 06:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - So many foreigners work at Interac. I hardly see what is notable about that. As is, the article reads like the companies own webpage - an advertisement? Also, simply because GreenJoe has nominated it several times for deletion does NOT mean imply bad faith. It's quite possible that the article just does not belong here.DDD DDD 07:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Unsure - After vigourously arguing for a week that the article should be deleted, I'm having great doubts. The fact that there is so little information available about a company that does indeed plays such a large role in the education system here in Japan is troubling.DDD DDD (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. I don't see how taking a contested prod to AfD is bad faith. It's the next logical step as I see it. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 10:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The company seems to have an interesting history and possibly some interesting current ties. I found some links through a blog[1] but didn't add the blog itself to the article. The sources I added seem to me to be reasonable. I'd say this is a notable company. ---- Busy Stubber (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia has become a leading source of information partially because of the speed at which information (on just about anything) can be obtained. Someone with the goal of teaching English in Japan would likely want information on the various ways this can be achieved. The page sounds an awful lot like the company's website because that is where I got my information. Rather than deleting the entire work, why not improve the content? Honestly I'm getting tired of having to defend spreading access to information... It's truly enough to make one not want to contribute.--Dustin Asby (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Addendum: "Notable means 'worthy of being noted' or 'attracting notice.' It is not synonymous with 'fame' or 'importance.'"

Content improvement depends on you and me and other editors. Keep at it! :-) --Busy Stubber (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Uncertain The company sounds as if it may be notable, but i dont see a single real 3rd party source for it. DGG (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how many universities list this company for ESL jobs in Japan, but here are some that list Interac Japan [2] [3] [4] [5] Here are university staff who include Interac Japan in their professional credentials.[6] [7] The Consulate-General of Japan in San Francisco lists Interac Japan.[8] The company is privately-held and doesn't publish much information, apparently. I wonder if there might be more information on Japanese-language websites. I don't know Japanese. --Busy Stubber (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

How does a vague job recruitment ad qualify as a 3rd party reference?DDD DDD (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that it does, but I'm assuming that universities make an effort to ensure that the companies that they suggest to graduates are reputable and respectable companies. By what measure, I don't know. But universities I think are generally considered reliable sources. --Busy Stubber (talk) 03:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete If the size of the company is large compared to other companies that are providing the same services in the same country, then it may merit an article. However, it is not a huge company in Japan when compared to others that provide similar services (unless you read it's own advertisements). If the determination is strictly on the size of the company, without comparison to other companies, then I would say even by this means, it doesn't merit an article.--GUIB Corrector (talk) 08:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You've been very candid about being an employee of Interac, and that's greatly appreciated. It might be best if you don't participate in this discussion. There seems to be a history of trying to delete this topic from Wikipedia. Sometimes small organizations are actually quite influential or notable within their specialties. I think you can cross your comments and mine out by putting <s> before your opinion and </s> after the end of this comment I'm making, if you decide to do that. --Busy Stubber (talk) 03:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not a criteria for not participating. Don't bite the newcomers. J (talk) 03:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

COI is a guideline, and I just made a suggestion to an inexperienced editor, not a demand. It's up to him. --Busy Stubber (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete In addition to all the points above, Interac Japan does not even have an article in Japanese, the language of the country where it is active. This seems to me to be very telling of this company's lack of "notability". It's "parent company" also has no article in either English or Japanese. Malnova (talk) 11:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep English language education in Japan is a substantial topic which unfortunately hasn't yet fully been developed on WP yet. Interac's position as a large supplier of ALT's to Japanese high schools puts them in close proximity to the overall subject and a loss of the article represents a loss of information about English language education in Japan and by that a loss of information about Japan itself. That the company 'Interac' is involved in the unique and (as far as my research indicates) incomparable second language education system makes the company notable ipso facto. I strongly feel that the closing admin should consider the multiple AFD attempts by the nominator. For profit companies like Interac, who operate in the educational sphere, covet censorship externally and more importantly internally.Statisticalregression (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that I was able to find an article in Japanese from the Yomiuri Shimbun (which I think is rated as having the highest distribution of any newspaper on the planet) and only took me 1 minute. The article is about ALT's in Japanese schools, and that the number of ALT's that are dispatched from private compaines such as Interac is on the rise. The article specificanlly mentions interac see here: [9] again I say Keep as the company and is notable as is the industry it is in. Statisticalregression (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for the very reason that Interac refuses to give interviews with the media such as NHK TV in Japan. Yes, there was a nation-wide report on Interac and their illegal use of ALTs with their outsourcing contracts as well as not enrolling employees into National Health Insurance. Here's a transcript, in English, of that NHK report. But Interac refused to be interview, as always. http://www.letsjapan.org/?q=nhk-report-on-problems-with-alt-dispatch-companies.html Wanzhen (talk) 23:33, 21 November 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.