Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vodafone Global Enterprise


 * 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.

Vodafone Global Enterprise
The result was   Speedy Delete per CSD G7 - author requests deletion after merging article successfully. Talk Islander 16:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

In my opinion, this article does nothing to assert notability. It has been written entirely by one author, who I suspect has a conflict of interest, and has at one point read very much like an advert. It strikes me that this is a small part of Vodafone, and thus merely deserves a mention in the parent Vodafone article, and not it's own article.

I almost wonder whether this article fails CSD A7, but I'm not entirely certain, and what with it being linked to Vodafone, there's bound to be someone who would argue that it has inherant notability, so I thought it safest to start a discussion. Talk Islander 11:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge anything that can be sourced to Vodafone. Stifle (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article reads like an advertisment, and I honestly want to avoid this. The article IS relevant, global enterprise are in practice very much like any of the operating countries, each of which do have their own page. At the minute the article does have only one author, which is the real problem here, more people need to contribute to this page. More information needs to be added, and the article needs to remain neutral, but it certainly should not be deleted. Jonathen Skews (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Could you just confirm whether or not you have a conflict of interest here? I want to stress that this isn't a mallicious accusation - if you have, that doesn't necessarily mean that you can't edit this article, and most, most, most certainly doesn't mean you can't contribute elsewhere, but it might just help matters if you could clarify this one point. Talk Islander 13:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have a conflict of interest, but I completely understand your point of view and am willing to co-operate completely. The point I am trying to make is that I do not want to be the only contributor, I am trying to make the article as informative and neutral as possible and would value further input. You certainly must agree that the subject is as relevant as the other subsidiaries, if not more so (look at the Hungary article for example)? Jonathen Skews (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ...interesting point about the Hungary article... will look into that another day. I have to say, it's really a breath of fresh air to have an editor with a COI who's actually willing to cooperate and be helpful, as opposed to most others I've encountered who simply fight and are generally stubborn. Whatever the outcome of this discussion, I hope you plan to stay on Wikipedia - we need more editors like you :). Talk Islander 16:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge unless some reliable 3rd party citations can be found. --Blowdart | talk 14:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What exactly would you like citations about? I would be happy to merge with the main Vodafone article, as long as we do not remove much information, and we can still link to the VGE homepage. Jonathen Skews (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Its notability. Whilst there is no doubt that Vodafone is notable, notability is not inherited. You must prove that this division has some notability of its own; simply existing as part of the parent organisation is not enough. --Blowdart | talk 14:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What would the Vodafone Global Enterprise section of a merged vodafone article include? Jonathen Skews (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, in all honesty, the VGE article as it stands right now would make a fine section in the parent Vodafone article. In other words, and my own opinion, just take the VGE article (minus the infoboxes, templates etc) and merge it into the VGE section within the Vodafone article. Talk Islander 15:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I have merged the article into the main Vodafone article, and am happy for the VGE page to be removed now. Thankyou Jonathen Skews (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2008 (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.