Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interac (Japan)

Interac (Japan)

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

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

Delete: Per the nom; fails to assert notability. - Rjd0060 04:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Keep - Employing over 1,000 foreign teachers in Japan alone makes this company pretty notable. --DAJF 05:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.'"[reply]

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

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)[reply]