Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DXC Technology


 * 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. No surprises there. On the one hand, there are opinions that the article still reads like an advertisement; on the other hand, it is obvious that the subject is notable by virtue of scope (employees, revenue), an argument which I have taken into account (arguments as to companies' purported ineptitude, however, were not factored in this closing). Please note that the article could always be trimmed, even to a single sentence if need be. El_C 07:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

DXC Technology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Marketing skit. All the detail is information about new company from merger. scope_creep (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, We will contribute more to this article as soon as we can. We have a content plan but cannot publish it until after April 3. Is there another way or section for corporate content? How do companies get their corporate profiles added to Wikipedia without it being considered marketing skit? HJDXC (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)HJDXC
 * "Keep as a placeholder". There is a need to capture CSC's and H-P's background, triumphs and disasters. The triumphalism of this Initial Pabulum Offering is enow to provoke many to spill the beans ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterFV (talk • contribs) 06:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a free hosting service for corporate content, whose appropriate place is on a corporate website. Regarding future changes to this page, now that it has been created, please do not edit directly but instead suggest changes on the Talk page, as per the conflict of interest guidelines. AllyD (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Once this actually happens we can determine how to handle the merging companies' pages - and whether a new page is needed. LynxTufts (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep: The apparent intention by a connected contributor to apply a "content plan" is a concern, but one which should be managed through normal edit oversight to ensure adherence to the terms and conditions. As to the question over the current article, the new firm has already been discussed in the UK Parliament in the context of job loss programmes in the lead-up to the merger, which, along with press coverage, may be enough for retention, albeit on a somewhat negative basis. AllyD (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge or Delete: If merits mention, merge into a main HP related article also mentioning other related merged or acquired companies.  PaleoNeonate (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The company has 170, 000 people. - Vald (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete for now; when the company establishes stand-alone notability, then I'm sure a non-COI contributor would create such article, without needing a "content plan". There's no rush to get to such a state, however. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 *  Keep Weak Keep : A quick google search for DXC technology yields around 450 billion results so imo it passes WP:GNG. Since the company now exists (as of today, April 3rd) it also no longer contradicts WP:CRYSTAL. Parts of the article would benefit from being rewritten by a willing non-COI contributor but that is not a reason to delete the article (WP:ATD). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofaclass (talk • contribs) 13:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I still can't see how this article is notable. Size alone isn't an indication of notability, and both the CSC company and the HP division have been consistently failing for years. I briefly worked for CSC in the late 90's in their consulting division and they couldn't tie their shoelaces without instruction. Truly. They have been criticized in the UK a number of time by the UK government, by the press and trade papers, including Computing for shoddy and late work. HP is in the same bracket. They have been failing for at least decade, and sent my favourite networking company, 3Com into oblivion, done a number of dodgy and mismanaged deals, some very large ones that have had to be written off, and then finally the deal was done to cast the massive division adrift. It's crying shame really.  So where is the defining notability in the new company? Size doesn't count. It is advertising, plain and simple. scope_creep (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Reading your comment it would appear you have a substantial WP:COI bias regarding this article. Based on WP:ORG the article is notable as it has received coverage on numerous sites (some have already been listed in this discussion). Also, a company does not have to be notable for good reasons to be notable. As for the article constituting as advertising, WP:ATD clearly states that editing pages is preferable to deleting them where possible. Since this page doesn't have much content on it anyway, removing or editing any content which could be considered promotional is definitely possible. Sofaclass (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete to completely obliterate this promotional article, with no prejudice against recreation through the Articles for Creation process if/when it can be proven by an unconnected editor that this company passes the General Notability Guideline. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment @Sofaclass. Working for a company 25 years ago, and I have a substantial WP:COI. Really? Don't be silly. The whole article is a marketing skit, designed to promote the company and at the same time say to use: Wikipedia, we will use you anyway we want, even if it means subverting both the Spirit and the Letter of WP.. It clearly violates WP:NOTADVERTISING as the article was created minutes after the company was created as part of a world wide marketing effort. It is curious how you happened to appear just after the article appeared. Have you perhaps been sent in to defend it.  scope_creep (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @scope_creep My mistake, bias not COI. Sorry. Recent edits have been made to the article so whilst still possibly violating WP:NOTADVERTISING I would not describe it as a 'clear' violation and any violating content could be removed easily. From the username of the creator of this article, it definitely suggests a COI with them, though the page has changed a lot since then and reads much less like a promotional article (though still arguably violating WP:NOTADVERTISING). The article was created on 15 February, the company first came into real existence earlier today. And no I have not been 'sent in' to 'defend' this article from possible deletion. Sofaclass (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Curious how it took you only four days to find WP:AFD and come in a defend the article. The name was choosen on 15th February with a press release released on the same day, and as if by magic, a full article appears, made by User talk:HJDXC who as a WP:SPA is clearly a WP:PAID paid Shill. Any marketing agency worth it's Salt would know how WP works and particularly how the WP:SPA policy works.  scope_creep (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2017 (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.