Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IBM Research – Brazil


 * 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 IBM Research. Suggesting merge into IBM Research. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

IBM Research – Brazil

 * – ( 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 10:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  10:10, 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)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete very little independent coverage, could just be included on parent company's page.  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1 - ( Talk ) -  12:41, 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) 15:05, 9 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) 02:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete or, 2nd choice, Merge per above. Doug Mehus  T · C  03:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge t0 IBM Research as a sub-heading PenulisHantu (talk) 17:32, 16 January 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.