Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B Communications


 * 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 Bezeq. ‑Scottywong | [chatter] || 04:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

B Communications

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH.  scope_creep Talk  12:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge with the article Bezeq. Based on a google search, B Communications appears to be a shell company of some sort that mainly was created as a way to manage controlling shares in Bezeq. It's also facing being removed from the NASDAQ. It seems to be notable, but only in relation to Bezeq.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge with the article Bezeq, per article claim whose sole asset is a controlling interest in Israeli telecommunications provider Bezeq. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:LISTED and WP:CORPDEPTH. It's actually double listed. B Communications owns Bezeq since 2009. Prior to that it owned other Israeli communication businesses. gidonb (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It has three references and all of them fail WP:CORPDEPTH.   scope_creep Talk  08:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. Topics are not judged by their current references but by their potential sources. The article by Wrobel looks fine. There are lots of good articles in Hebrew. It's a thoroughly covered company. gidonb (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No. If is not sourced properly, then it will get deleted. Its an established article since 2011, so no excuses for not having a perfect set of sources.   scope_creep Talk  10:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant and dodging a reference. I will refer you to WP:NEXIST: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. It's not a coincidence that 100% of the respondents so far reject the proposal to delete the article. gidonb (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if it was 2010 folk could get away with it, but not now. It is entirely unacceptable to have an article that doesn't have references. It also against the Wikipedia Terms of Use. Rolling the old trope of WP:NEXIST, particularly for an article that been on the go for an almost a decade, is also unacceptable. We are not reviewing it.   scope_creep Talk  17:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear that you disagree with our guidelines! You continue to dodge a proper reference. Is it possible that because of contempt for guidelines, you refused to do a proper WP:BEFORE and even failed to read the sources you referred to yourself? Per WP:Editing policy Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. No interest either? This approach to the conventions that regulate our collaborative efforts is "refreshing" in a negative sense. gidonb (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That doesn't cut it dude. You are the only editor I've know with such jaundiced view of how Wikimedia works. The article is almost 10 years old. If there was references they would be present.  scope_creep Talk  06:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Most editors at Wikipedia care about our guidelines and policies. Care that a proper WP:BEFORE is done before AfDs. Would be surprised if a nominator had not examined the references in the article close enough to pass judgement on these. Keeping our policies and guidelines builds and preserves amity, the opposite of jaundice and my goal for this community! gidonb (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't bring up the WP:BEFORE thing, particularly since I do 100's of these Afd's every year. If you have references, throw them up so they can be examined. Some that passes WP:SIRS and WP:NCORP and asserts WP:V on the article.   scope_creep Talk  15:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - Since 2010 B Communications has just been a holding company whose sole purpose is to own a 30% interest in Bezeq (Bezeq is an independent company, not a subsidiary). From its EDGAR filings, you can see it was spun off from Internet Gold in 2007 and had only 4 to 5 employees. If it has notability-related sources, they would be in Israel. From what I can see, its only notability would come from getting peripherally involved in Case 4000 as this Times of Israel article explains and the sale to a private equity firm as explained in this article maclean (talk) 03:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and Merge with Bezeq as suggested above appears to make the most sense. I am unable to locate any references (in any language) theat meets the criteria for establishing notabilty. On its own, topic fails GNG/NCORP.  HighKing++ 13:15, 24 September 2020 (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.