Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Textron Systems


 * 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 Textron. (non-admin closure) Baseball   Watcher  01:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Textron Systems

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article consists of information sourced from the subject itself and has not be modified in over a year prior to my earlier attempt to speedy delete as a result of it simply being spam advertising for the company without any independent sources and no attempt to improve or fix it in a year's time. Chuglur (talk) 08:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. First, this is not promotional in my opinion, even less blatant spam. The article lacks references, true, but this is partially mitigated by the fact that all the content about the subsidiaries is from other Wikipedia articles that are better sourced, with the exception of Textron Defense Systems which needs more work. Also, there is little doubt that the subject is notable, as Textron runs several operational units that are by themselves notable for Wikipedia articles. Any problems that this article has can be solved without deletion. Zakhalesh (talk) 08:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is this is a subsidiary of a larger company and it doesn't need its own article if it is not distinguished enough to easily find independent sources for it. Most of the big companies only have separate articles for their biggest divisions that are easily citied. As well Textron may be notable but each individual division of Textron may not be notable as in this case. Chuglur (talk) 08:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well a quick Google search yielded interesting results. The company has made the news, even quite recently. Seems like they had a big contract coming their way. I stand by my opinion - the problems with the article aren't worth deleting for. Subsidiary merge could be a good idea, but let's not hurry about it. Zakhalesh (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The problems are significant requiring a entire rewrite from scratch for many of the Textron related of articles just on a quick survey from the main holding company's page. It would be better for these 2 articles to be started from scratch with the speedy deletion option for duplicate material to encourage better rewritten articles in the future as no attempt has been made to further these articles since their inception in their current state which I should note is just over a year from today.Chuglur (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't be better to speedy the articles, because there's no criterion they match. The subject is notable and the article isn't written in a promotional tone. No editing doesn't mean that the article should be deleted either. The one bigger problem I see with this topic is that it's hard to find anything to say about Textron that isn't about one of the subsidiaries, making finding sources relevant to the Textron group as whole rather hard, which is why a merge here from the other articles could be appropriate. Zakhalesh (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe it would be best to make it a subsection in the Textron Inc. article. It is a sub company and since the article is not very large, I believe a brief summary or condensed version in the over all Textron article would be best.  @ d \/\/ | | | Talk 13:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Textron Inc. That business must have an intriguing history that the current article hardly covers.  This article contains swatches of nonsense (a provider of integrated intelligence software solutions and services) that would not need to be carried over. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * I agree that a merger would probably suit this article's needs better than keeping it at its current state. I leave the details to more experienced editors. Zakhalesh (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with merging as well.Chuglur (talk) 07:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I again say merging would be the best option. Adwiii  Talk   11:19, 28 April 2011 (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.