Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BA Merchant Services


 * 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 delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

BA Merchant Services

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It is a routine practice for corporations to create holding companies like this one to temporarily "own" assets being transferred in a merger or purpose. These holding companies should pass a higher bar to demonstrate independently notable, and in this case this lack of notability is borne out in the absence of independent reliable sources on this entity. bd2412 T 22:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I believe the relevant policy is the WP:CORPDEPTH one. This article has few sources and I can't see many more on a Google search, it would seem to me that the coverage in independent sources does not reach the standard needed by the policy. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - I disagree that holding companies cannot be notable, but this one doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. I initially found this and this which are in-depth, but according to the company website, this is a different company altogether. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know that I would characterize that one as a temporary holding company at all - it appears to be more of a going concern. If an article on that company is made, this title can redirect there. bd2412  T 20:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what I was thinking. However, I cannot locate anything on BA Merchant Services other than to verify it existed at one point. I stated to work on a draft of the other company but not sure that redirecting BA Merchant Services to the new company would be appropriate being that they are in fact two separate companies and doing so could confuse readers. That's just my opinion though. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, that definitely makes sense. bd2412  T 00:33, 23 January 2018 (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.