Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rigaku

Rigaku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Julian in LA (talk · contribs) attempted to nominate this article for deletion, but wound up sending the talk page to AfD instead. Their rationale follows:

fails WP:COMPANY#Primary criteria. A search of Newspapers.com, Google and JSTOR revealed no notability. Ldm1954 commented that "They are a famous maker of x-ray equipment." Fame is not the same as notability and nothing in the sources indicates that they are more widely known than dozens of other multinational technology companies.
— User:Julian in LA 18:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

My involvement is merely procedural; I am neutral and offer no opinion or further comment (beyond that

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Science, Technology, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural, to clarify, @Julian in LA did nominate it via a PROD which I contested . They then inappropriately nominated it for AfD on the talk page, which I reverted indicating that it needed to be done at the main page. Since they meant to do an AfD let's run with this. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A fuller explanation is at Rigaku#Proposed deletion of Rigaku. Julian in LA (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Technical correction, the location is Talk:Rigaku#Proposed deletion of Rigaku, which is for the original PROD. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. The nom is a new editor, and I do not think that they did a proper
  JStor is enough to justify a commercial page; the number here is way beyond that.Ldm1954 (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Speedy Keep - I am finding sources in a before search on Google Books, Scholar, news, JSTOR, and etc. I am flummoxed as to why this was prodded and then nominated for deletion. Perhaps the nominator can elaborate? Netherzone (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Add to my comment above: clearly meets

  WP:GNG based on numerous sources in peer-reviewed academic journals. Netherzone (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Comment I came here from this nominator's other talk page nomination,
  SNOW keep if it becomes clear that this is where the consensus is headed. Toadspike [Talk] 07:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep - Rigaku is covered by reliable independent sources. For example, News Medical Life Science), Forbes, and Reuters. The company has a long history and extensive scientific use, meeting WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 09:10, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I nominated two out of a dozen or more pages on [Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests] to see how the community regards

  WP:LISTED

  .

  These pages are written by PR firms and contain little other than the company logo, a statement that they are "leaders in" some vaguely defined industry, an equally vague list of their products, the stock price, the current CEO and a long, long list of other companies they have swallowed up. This is of interest only to investors who can't afford a subscription to Morningstar and tax accountants who can't afford a subscription to Capital Changes Reporter (https://www.nypl.org/node/424884).

  The fact that one or more of the company's products are widely used suggests a product page under

  WP:PRODUCT or perhaps a mention in a more generic page on the product category, such as x-ray diffractometers. It is unlikely that the researchers who use these care who the current CEO is and what mergers they have made. In other words, having a notable product or having an entry in a notable market does not make the company notable. Julian in LA (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Related question: if all publicly traded companies are notable, are any of their COE edits immaterial or trivial? Here are the current edit requests for Rigaku. I feel silly checking them out one at a time:

  Increase the employee count by 67 (really!). There is a comment on the talk page that neither the new nor old numbers are reliable.

  Add the date that their current CEO's appointment was announced.

  Add their new Boston office to the list of locations.

  Add "semiconductor metrology instruments" and LIBS analyzers to the already long list of products.

  Increase their annual revenue by ¥28 billion or 40%. The editor points out that the old figure is two years old, but it was out of date as soon as the next annual report was issued. A huge increase through internal growth would be noteworthy, but if it came from buying up other companies, it's not. Those 67 new employees are generating a whole lot of revenue.

  The company was acquired by the Carlyle Group in 2021 and made an IPO in 2024. They seem very pleased at the price they got for their stock, but there is no indication as to what they are going to do with all that money. More acquisitions? I guess we could go searching for the prospectus to answer that. Julian in LA (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]