Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Club (eikaiwa)

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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Club (eikaiwa)

nn company and school. Note: It is not related Tokyo American Club. Exleops (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC) — Exleops (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Question Why is it not notable? Are all of the provided references invalid? Drawn Some (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wrote a rather long reply to Greg Tyler's post. When I saved the page I didn't see Drawn Some's comments on it. I hope she sees the comments I just posted. If not, please let me know. Thanks.Rayjameson (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, American Club (eikaiwa) is no relation to Tokyo American Club (which is not on the English wikipedia, but I found it on the Japanese wikipedia a couple hours ago). This is my previous post (I also noted it on Drawn Some's talk page: Rayjameson (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Dear Greg Tyler, You are right, I am a new user. So, that means I am doing my best to learn the ropes and navigate through wikipedia editing. I apologize in advance if I am inadvertently not following wikipedia protocol. That said, I was surprised to find that the American Club (eikaiwa) article was recommended for deletion. I spent a lot of time researching and referencing it. I have personal knowledge of the events described in the article, lived in Japan for several years, and have a big interest in Japan and its foreign relations. However, I sincerely believe my writing was neutral and well-referenced. (I also think it is an interesting story, but that's not for me to decide.) I could understand an edit, even a heavy edit, but as I said I was surprised to find it recommended for deletion. But if that's the consensus, then so be it. If I have stumbled in the learning process I'm going through in learning to edit/write on wikipedia, the best I can hope for is that I get better in the process. I hope I have satisfied you. If not, let me know. Thank you for taking the time to debate the article. It's helping me to learn. Sincerely, RayjamesonRayjameson (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Rayjameson (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 11:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Which notability criterion does it fail to meet? Fg2 (talk) 11:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears notable due to available non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Other issues can be dealt with outside of AfD. Drawn Some (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, similar naming is irrelevant to notability. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Needs some cleanup, but the extensive references seem to be enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Unless the nominator has a specific argument to make otherwise, I see no reason not to keep it. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AFD nominator fails to indicate what criteria is not met. Reports of the company in Japanese Language newspapers are used as references as well as primary references.Statisticalregression (talk) 01:53, 29 May 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.