Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hewlett Packard Enterprise Software


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Software

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

HP Software or HP Enterprise software no longer exists as a segment of Hewelett Packard and apparently has been merged into Micro Focus (September 2017) link to article here. Also, the info in this article seems to be routine business announcements. Fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. I am not sure merging this into Micro Focus in necessary, and may be more work than necessary. A recent attempt to redirect to Micro Focus was reverted here. There is tag dated January 2016 stating the information was out of date at that time. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 07:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 07:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 07:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, same as Articles for deletion/HP Enterprise Business. Just a corporate brochure & no value to the project. Almost no valid incoming links, so deletion is a best option here, especially given that a redirect has already been attempted, and was reverted by a SPA. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. First, I admit to being a former employee.  I came across the page looking for some information, and was quite surprised that there was an independent page for HPE Software.  The kind of information I was looking for is not there, and the stuff that is there is incomplete/outdated.  So it is definitely a "bad article".  While I'd think some of the products, people, and top-level companies are notable enough, they already have their own articles, and this shell wouldn't be needed even if properly populated with facts.98.118.83.208 (talk) 12:21, 2 October 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.