Talk:Comcast Business

Merge
I was bold and merged this into Comcast but have been reverted, so let's discuss it. The main article isn't overly long at the moment, so there is little point in having a separate article for a subsidiary. Most of the information in this article was already in that one, and I added what wasn't there earlier today. Is there any reason not to redirect this to Comcast? SmartSE (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * If one carries the SmartSE logic through to its bitter conclusion, then similar merge proposals need to be placed on NBC, NBCUniversal, Golf Channel, Telemundo, Fandango, MSNBC, Universal Orlando, and about three dozen other pages that have separate articles for subsidiaries of Comcast. There is ample reason to split off Comcast to Comcast Business, but there is very little reason to try to redirect Comcast Business to Comcast.  Comcast is too large a company to keep encyclopedic coverage thoughtfully aligned on all its subsidiaries, under one article.  The merge proposal is preposterous, in my opinion. - I&#39;m not that crazy (talk) 03:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken if you think that I am advocating for that. The issue is whether there are sufficient reliable sources that discuss this company - as I've just noted in the section below, there hasn't been anything written about it in high quality sources which should form the basis of any article. It's not particularly surprising, since business telecoms isn't a particularly interesting subject (not that my personal opinion matters). This discussion might be better held at WP:AFD where we can discuss whether WP:CORP can be met. In my opinion, it clearly can't which is why I was bold and merged it. SmartSE (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the reason you do not consider the sources to be "high quality" is because you consider the subject "uninteresting". These business journals are reliable sources for uncontroversial claims. Westin Dodger 22:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose: This article does have coverage beyond what Comcast does, and it is continually expanding every day. See WP:NOPAGE. PrairieKid (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Clearly not enough material about this wing of Comcast to merit a separate article. Merge and redirect. Steven Walling &bull; talk   05:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't think 42 sources that mention the company's president, Bill Stemper, are enough? You don't think 104 sources that mention the company's Ethernet services are enough?  Or that 9 sources that mention the company's VoIP services are enough?  Or that 7 sources mentioning Comcast Business Upware are enough?  Steven, you work for the Wikimedia Foundation.  How did you develop such an odd sense of judging availability of material? - I&#39;m not that crazy (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This company is a multi-billion dollar subsidiary of the largest media conglomerate in the world, and passes the notability guideline with flying colors. Some do not consider the sources to be high quality because they are business journals. If one isn't interested in business, then of course business journals may not seem to be high quality sources, but notice that the claims I have been adding are not controversial, and are well supported by the sources. I am still working on this one, but it's not an area that I would usually write in, so I'm learning a lot by writing this one. :) Westin Dodger 22:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * OPPOSE Comcast corp is too big of a company to include all information under one article. Would be best to have a subtopic that would provide links to the various subsidiaries/holdings of comcast, including Comcast Business, Spectator, & Spotlight, along with its various holdings in television content - separated by still operating & defunct channels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pennstate2013 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)  — Pennstate2013 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Support per Steven Walling and SmartSE. No need for a spinoff article until this article generates more coverage than it has at present. Coretheapple (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Support as this article is too small to merit a separate article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose it is a viable topic, and this article is a good start. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support The discussion is about this article in particular, let's avoid slippery slope arguments about the implications of a merge to broader policy. It may be that the topic has enough information to build a separate article, but that fact has yet to be demonstrated. The article is stub sized right now, and should be placed into Comcast until it becomes too large to fit nicely in that article. I'd say merge.Forbes72 (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose As Comcast has been tagged as being too long, we probably don't want to add information. I've also discovered it's not just a brand difference, it's a seperate entity: Comcast Business Communications, LLC. . I've changed my mind. Keep separate.Forbes72 (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Overgutted
I have restored encyclopedic facts that were removed as part of the overzealous gutting of this article. There is a discussion elsewhere about whether the list of clients belongs in this article, but the progression and growth of the company should be included IMO, and to include the name of the man in charge of the division also seems reasonable to me. Is there any reason this information should be omitted? Westin Dodger 23:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * All of that information was sourced to press releases which per WP:SPS should rarely be used as sourced. There are hundreds about Comcast business but there is no way for us as editors to determine which are important enough to include (WP:WEIGHT). We need to find independently written articles to use as references, such as the ones I left in the article. Can you see the difference in writing style between them? What we really need are articles in the New York Times or similar which actually discuss the company, but as far as I can tell they don't exist. That's why I was bold and decided to merge it, since there's very little that's ever been written about it. SmartSE (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh and I left the info about the guy who runs it in the article. SmartSE (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * From the page you cited, WP:SPS "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.[9] Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." It does not prohibit the use of such sources, only to exercise caution and do not use them in BLPs. I have re-added and expanded the uncontroversial claim using Template:Cite press release. I hope this is sufficient. Also, right underneath of WP:SPS is WP:SELFPUB which states "self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" as long as the claim isn't exceptional. The claim that Comcast Business expanded in 2011 and continues to expand is not disputed or controversial. As for "if it is worth reporting someone would have done so", one of the press releases was published by the Wall Street Journal, the other by a business journal. :) Westin Dodger 07:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * A secondary source has published a story about the Boston Ballet's use of Comcast Business. It seems a shame to omit these, in my humble opinion. Westin Dodger 01:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is what I find amusing. This is a list of the Comcast Business clients we as Wikipedians are allowed to mention in the article about Comcast Business:
 * Denver Broncos
 * And this is a list of the mostly animated characters that voiceover actress Tara Strong has provided talent for, that we as Wikipedians are allowed to mention in the article about Tara Strong:
 * And this is a list of the mostly animated characters that voiceover actress Tara Strong has provided talent for, that we as Wikipedians are allowed to mention in the article about Tara Strong:
 * And this is a list of the mostly animated characters that voiceover actress Tara Strong has provided talent for, that we as Wikipedians are allowed to mention in the article about Tara Strong:






 * Now, here's a test -- what's wrong with this picture? - I&#39;m not that crazy (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * SmartSE says above: What we really need are articles in the New York Times or similar which actually discuss the company, but as far as I can tell they don't exist. That's why I was bold and decided to merge it, since there's very little that's ever been written about it. SmartSE (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

(emphasis added) ... What about that Boston Globe article that discusses Comcast Business waay more than it does the Boston Ballet? Our own article says of the Globe: ""The Boston Globe has been awarded 22 Pulitzer Prizes since 1966"", and that seems like a lot of awards to me, perhaps not exactly the NYT, but it seems like a respectable organization, and the author doesn't seem to have any apparent connection to Comcast Business... he is described as a "general assignment business reporter". It seems that some people would rather argue finer points of policy than be productive and add content, or at least stand aside so someone else can add content. I'm going to try working more on it tonight, I just found a couple of new sources so I hope to expand it somewhat. Westin Dodger 22:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Founding date?
I've done my best to report sources, but it seems contradictory to me. Someone have any ideas? Forbes72 (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * according to this timeline on Comcast's site, "Comcast formed Business Services and launched Internet and voice services for small businesses with less than 20 employees" in 2006. 173.87.169.221 (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Forbes72, it is also "original research" for you to say "The initial founding of Comcast Business is unclear." According to you, maybe.  But no independent reliable source has ever said that about Comcast Business.  I suspect you're placing far too much trust in a site like Bloomberg Businessweek, which is just scraping metadata from various electronic sources.  Of the "Key Executives" that site lists (Mr. John G. Sullivan, Mr. Ron Tonge, Mr. Nathaniel R. Cohen, Mr. Kevin Conmy, and Mr. Jeff Allen), only Conmy and Allen are still employed by Comcast.  Obviously, the Bloomberg Businessweek data is so far out of date, its reliability is to be severely questioned -- including the bogus "Founded in 1992" data point. - 2001:558:141C:0:0:5EFE:AA1:D1F0 (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right about the 1992 date. The source isn't reliable enough by itself, which is why it's confusing. I've removed the "unclear" bit, it's probably WP:SYN. I definitely oppose listing the founding date as 2006 though. It looks to me like "Comcast Business Services" was founded in 2006, but Comcast started "Comcast Business Communications" in 1997. "Comcast Business Communications" is definitely a company:
 * "Comcast Business Communications is a wholly owned subsidiary of Comcast Corporation and is headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania."
 * but I'm not so sure about "Comcast Business Services". It might be a subsidiary of Comcast, a division of Comcast Cable, or maybe just a brand name. Can you point me towards your source for the employment of the key executives? I'd love to get the facts straight here.Forbes72 (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. Both Comcast Business Online Communications, Inc. and Comcast Business Telephony Services, Inc. seem to have existed prior to 1997.Forbes72 (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)