Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avaya Government Solutions


 * 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   merge to Avaya .  MBisanz  talk 21:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Avaya Government Solutions

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. This is yet another of the many many Avaya product pages. These all seem to be PR pages. Wikipedia is not a platform to showcase every little Avaya product ever produced. Non-notatable, trivial, (Not to mention spammy) and adds nothing to Wikipedia. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep/Merge notable US Government contractor. Needs expansion or merge with Avaya. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge, not independently notable. -- No  unique  names  22:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Highbeam shows ample results for them. Google news probably has some results too. Not sure if any of it has much detail about them, or just their activities, signing a deal with the Coast Guard, etc. Don't care one way or the other myself.   D r e a m Focus  22:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - How is this any more notable than any other government contractor? Did "Avaya Government Solutions" do something special? What was the incident? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep utterly absurd deletion for major branch ($400,000,000 revenue) of very important and famous company. Most large commercial enterprises are too large to cover in one article; this is appropriate use of summary style. It's true this article does not well explain the notability to a reader who might be unfamiliar with the commercial IT world, but the cure for that is expansion--and probably separate articles for the major product groups.  DGG ( talk ) 20:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Which notability guideline states notability exists at a certain dollar value? Further, if this is an example of summary style, it is a terribly poor one.  Summary style requires that each article must be able to stand as a self contained unit.  References have not been provided to illustrate such in this instance.  -- No  unique  names  23:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Common outcomes and common sense.  D r e a m Focus  02:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with DGG's reasoning. I didn't notice this in the article before. "Revenue $400 million US$ (2007)".  Yep, a company is notable based on the big money it makes.   D r e a m Focus  20:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Avaya has been given a good deal of free advertising courtesy of Wikipedia! We need to to take a firmer stance with all of these company articles before Wikipedia becomes a business directory with a few encyclopedia articles. We should be using WP:OTHERSTUFF to set a level playing field otherwise Wikipedia would give one company a commercial advantage over others. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * or a reluctant partial merge. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope you do realize that Avaya isn't behind these articles and really doesn't need "advertising on wikipedia". They have over $5 billion in world wide revenue. Mike (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to Avaya which is where this material belongs. A recent problem on Wikipedia has been people thinking a lack of notability leads to deletion.  It does not.  A lack of notability means "do not have a separate article".  WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD both lead us to prefer outcomes such as "merge" or "redirect" over deletion.  I've noticed even experienced administrators failing to grok this recently, which is annoying.  Please would the closer read the "delete" !votes above as "merge" or "redirect" in accordance with policy.— S Marshall  T/C 11:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to Avaya. I actually had this on my list of content to integrate into the Avaya article for some time... if I jumped the gun by adding it before this AfD was closed, please revert with my apologies. Pjhansen (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * merge into Avaya. And castrate the spammers. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * @The Red Pen of Doom, what spammers? Lets please stop this witch hunt which is giving Wikipedia a black eye. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * oh ferchrisake, what " is giving Wikipedia a black eye" is that we are allowing the servers supported by donations from people wishing to support a free encyclopedia to instead be highjacked to host free corporate advertisements on the highest ranking search engine domain. THATs the real issue and if it takes a witchhunt to clean out such crap, so be it and sign me up for a pitchfork and torch! --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and rollback To maintain history,  how about divorcing the Nortel part from the Avaya part by rolling back this article to this version, giving it its original name Nortel Government Solutions and creating a new article for Avaya Government Solutions? This way history will be preserved and will enable someone to one day create a third article called Performance Engineering Corporation (PEC) Ottawahitech (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2012 (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.