Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DST Systems (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

DST Systems
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

The company 'DST Systems' has been acquired by SS&C Technologies https://www.zdnet.com/article/ss-c-acquires-dst-systems-in-5-4-billion-deal/. It does not operate with this name anymore and there is a Wikipedia page for SS&C Tech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS%26C_Technologies. It mentions that the company has been acquired. I do not think that we should keep this page. Yaywoh (talk) 11:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge. The company was acquired, and any important information on the page should just go onto SS&C Technologies. Jmill1806 (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note - Properly transcluded on 02:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC). ~  Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 04:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: From its creation out of Kansas City Southern (company) to its acquisition by SS&C Technologies, this company had quite a long history, given in some detail in this article, including the post-takeover mass layoffs. Although that and other available sources are from the perspective of the firm's hometown, they may contribute towards the question of whether the firm had attained notability. AllyD (talk) 06:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. No policy based rationale to delete/merge that I can identify. The discussion doesn't address the subject's notability. Someone should first argue that it isn't notable, not that it would be merely opportune to (effectively) merge two articles. On a first look, the subject appears notable. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't you think the relevant issue here is not notability, but whether this makes sense as a separate page? Given the company itself has merged into SS&C Technologies? I don't think anyone would disagree that this business was notable when it existed. I don't know of an explicit policy about when a notable entity merges with another notable entity, what should happen to the page of the entity that no longer exists. Jmill1806 (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case, proposing a wp:merger is more appropriate. ~ Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 00:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am still not entirely convinced that this firm met the WP:NCORP criteria (hence my query above), but if so, then it comes under the "notability is not temporary" line. Its subsequent acquisition by a competitor is not relevant if it was indeed notable in its time. AllyD (talk) 05:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link. That seems to be about not requiring continued coverage in reliable sources. The problem here is that the notable entity is now merged into another notable entity. That seems different to me, so I'm leaving my vote for now. Jmill1806 (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding a possible merger target, the article I linked above seems to indicate the takeover was the dismantling of a competitor, in which circumstance it is hard to see what would actually be merged into SS&C Technologies. An alternative would be the source page at Kansas City Southern (company) under whose initiation this company at least operated. But as says, the assessment of merger proposals and targets generally follows a process other than WP:AFD. AllyD (talk) 06:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on merger?

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't merge. (please don't strike – this is a separate !vote in the reframed post-relisting discussion, which is about merger specifically). I just don't see a case for merger. A past company with a long history should not be merged with the company that acquired it, I don't see a practical or a more formal policy-based need. It's like merging the Republic of Texas into United States of America. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:49, 16 May 2021 (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.