Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IBM Research – Africa


 * 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. Sorry for the erroneous third relist. The "keep" opinions do not address the arguments for deletion; they do not discuss why this article is notable or should otherwise be kept.  Sandstein  10:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

IBM Research – Africa

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I prodded it with "No evidence this company passes WP:NCOMPANY/GNG. Could redirect to IBM research, through it's dubious this sub-lab is a likely searchable term." Prod was declined, an anon redirected it later, that was reverted. Time for an AfD discussion. What makes this research institute separately notable from its parent company (IBM Research)? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  10:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What is going on here, User:Piotrus? You nominated this article for deletion like a week ago, I responded.  No "prod was declined".  Where did that page go?  Please resurrect it so that others know that all that legitimately happened.
 * Now you are nominating it over all again like it is your first time and I never did. This isn't right.  I am going to leave this same message at the other two pages where you are doing the identical thing.  Yours, 11:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I checked that page, then the auto-generated notice that was left on my Talk page on December 30, 2019, which indicated an objection could be left in the form of an Edit Summary, which I did: "There is just a date and location for this lab at the IBM Research page. There is relevant cited content here. The page is not simply "clutter" to be deleted."  Without consensus you then merged the article into IBM Research, which was reverted by another editor, not at all an anonymous user, it was, User:Dicklyon, who has been with the encyclopedia since 2006 and has over 100,000 edits.  My original comment stands on its merits.  Don't pretend none of this is happening.  Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Wikiuser100 You seem not to be familiar with WP:DELETION. Prior proposal was WP:PROD, which you challenged, as was your right. I read your edit summary, found it lacking, hence the next step is a discussion at a wider forum (i.e. here). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not. But that's not what you did, User:Piotrus. Stop being disingenuous - or outright dishonest. You didn't just "go to discussion", as you falsely claim above, you pretended to merge the articles (dishonestly using that term in your edit summaries at those pages), but did not do that. You blanked them, then incorporated absolutely none of their contents at the main IBM Research page. It's all there in the page histories, and confirmed by User:Dicklyon in his post below. In fact, there was less total at the IBM research (where you even deleted helpful preexisting headings there) then before your phony "merges". Which were then reverted, whereupon you have begun a new round of mongering for deletion. You in fact are being completely dishonest here, and must cease it. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not such thing. You are apparently also not familiar with the article's history tab, as you confuse actions by some anonymous editor with my actions. Further, you are also not familiar with WP:NPA, since accusing others of dishonesty and such is not nice, and can lead to sanctions. Please learn how the system works before attacking others. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete very little independent coverage, could just be included on parent company's page.  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1 - ( Talk ) -  12:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Or whatever the proper terminology is.  There is valid content at the page.  Editor time can be better spent cleaning up gop at "In popular culture" sections or other valuable tasks here than this.   Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not a valid AfD rationale. AFD WP:NOTAVOTE. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. But we need to see a serious merge proposal and discussion first.  The previous so-called merge that I reverted was just a delete, with the merge target article getting smaller when 6 other articles were deleted.  This was just wrong.  If we don't have a sensible merge plan for the more minor sites, keep them.  For the major sites like Almaden and Zurich, just keep. Dicklyon (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And what is your keep rationale outside 'previous merge had no rationale', which is hardly a valid one...? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not seeking to preempt User:Dicklyon's response here, but users please see my response inserted above to dissimulation from User:Poitrus also inserted above. If I knew how to hyperlink you directly to it, I would.  It's hard left, separated by carriage returns.  Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 19:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC) `  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * No indication of independent notability and does not meet NCORP. At minimum should be redirected if not deleted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   15:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete (1st choice) per as there's nothing here to merge, really, and no history to keep/Merge or Redirect (2nd choice), as applicable, per Articles for deletion/IBM Research – Brazil. Doug Mehus  T · C  23:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:14, 2 February 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.