Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vodafone Global Enterprise (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. without prejudice towards future merge discussions Mark Arsten (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Vodafone Global Enterprise
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I initially deleted the article and moved the non-promotional content to the parent Vodafone article, that was reverted so using the principal of WP:BRD I am now nominating the article for deletion. This is an article about a division of Vodafone. It isn't notable enough to warrant a separate article. All this article does right now is say "it exists". It does nothing to establish the company's notability - its size, turnover, significant products, achievements, or customers. I believe it is best deleted and left as a section within the parent article. Biker Biker (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 *  Strong keep - This is a multi-billion pound turnover subsidiary of one of the largest companies in the world. Independently it would be an FTSE 100 company and significant third party coverage is available with ease: . It is also a natural break out article from the main Vodafone article which is already very large. Yes details of the sort which you describe need to be added, and I am just about to do so. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - £1.3 billion revenue is not multi-billion pound turnover, and in a £46.4 billion company I simply can't see how it rates a separate article. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I made a mistake about the revenues number, they are currently smaller than I had understood. However £1.3 billion in revenues is still very large (there is no requirement for a company to have a certain amount of revenues to qualify for a WP article in any case). It is also true that the revenues number will go up very considerably once the acquisition of Cable & Wireless Worldwide completes in the next few months (it has revenues of £2.2 billion). Even without that this would still be a highly notable topic however, third party coverage is extensive. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - Let me put my thoughts - why it was redone a few weeks back. As a start, I do understand this particular article was deleted a couple of years back as seen from the log. At that time (2006 - 2008), the enterprise business was evolving and at its inception. Then why it was redone - the ans lies in the editing of wiki pages of enterprise business of Orange and Siemens - see Siemens Enterprise Communications, Orange Business Services. As a natural progression to understand cross links, a separate VGE page was populated ( which it requires) with history ( and for future edits). Now the deletion nomination is bit out of logic and I would be surprised if the Enterprise division doesn't merit a separate article. If non-separate logic holds true - then all enterprise business division articles including BT Global Services need to be combined into the parent article (which is a most unlikely choice as a separate page is rqrd). So I would vote for a strong keep. Jean Julius Vernal 13:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP: CORP as there is ample 3rd party reliable coverage. Electric Catfish 22:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Vodafone: though it definitely passes WP:NCORP, it is impractical to cover this particular branch in a separate article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why?Rangoon11 (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it is a subsidiary of Vodafone that copes with a segment of the scope of parent company. Both articles have significant amount of scope intersection and not much encyclopedic content on the subsidiary can be written. The general notion of WP:NCORP regarding subsidiaries is pretty straightforward: unless the article is too big, the subsidiaries, departments, etc. should be covered in parent articles. I see no necessity in separate article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Some significant divisions ( matter of fact be it any article say a personality/company ) starts with few lines (barely few lines) which later conceptualise into a full fledged article. Agreed two years back this particular division may not (I say may not) have merited a branch out. Say in past twelve months, the carving out is in progress ( its existing operations and acquisitions) and a space is required to pen the evolution - in terms of future acquisitions, its geographical divisions, management changes, solutions ( the solution is different from a typical mere mobile network provider). And, it is not advisable to populate already crowded Vodafone page. The logic is same for any article (personalities, divisions, major subsidiaries), when the need arises to pen a couple of (separate unique) lines, create a branch out and leave to the rest to contribute. It may take some time, but leave a space to contribute. If we are planing (everytime) to delete and merge those few lines, then we arent giving a chance for others to contribute. This is pure common sense, the very reason it was recreated. The reason behind enterprise division of Orange and Siemens - the articles merited significant inputs, so it was given. Now if a debate start that we need to delete Siemens Enterprise Communications and Orange Business Services and merge into their parent company - wouldn't it be ridiculous?. Take another view - what if someone merged ( say Orange Business Services) three years back, would we have a space to contribute say in June 2012? Coming back to VGE, I do respect the inputs/thoughts from the 'merge' camp, but a logical outcome should be to keep it. Have a thought Jean Julius Vernal 16:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't (or at least shouldn't) work this way. Instead, the content should be split out once (1) the article has to be split otherwise and (2) the content is mature enough to merit its own article. Splitting out a stub and waiting for its natural development is just impractical: we daily delete such space wasters in AfD process, including those from year 2006 or so. And please, no WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST arguments. Also note, that this division is not even a primary candidate for splitting out: the history sections normally come first (if split is required, which is not the case with Vodafone). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. From 2007 - 2012, it was maturing in Vodafone and once the strategy is set with the Bluefish acquisition (Dec 2011) along with C&W acquisition (2012) it is no longer regarded as a stub. It has enough history / separate operational divisions / a clear separate solution strategy to merit a separate article. It wasnt my intention to bring WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST arguments, but a need arose to explain the evolution of VGE (new) article, so it was mentioned. The need - a natural progression to understand the evolution "Enterprise" Business strategy from 2006 - 2012 in many companies. As a wikipedia user, we skip from one page to another, in search of the connected articles and references - atleast that is how we use -  for personal knowledge gathering or professional case studies. If there is a lack of info, we users populate the content or fill the vacuum. And I found it wise to populate a new page, rather than crowd the parent article and including a reason it is not a stub. As seen in its operational divisions / history / solutions - there is a clear branching out. Jean Julius Vernal 18:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it doesn't make sense to me. The current article is short and still is nearly (if not absolutely) equal in coverage to yet shorter . In fact I see neither development potential of the VGE article, nor any constrains imposed on VGE coverage by keeping it within Vodafone and redirecting Vodafone Global Enterprise and its common aliases (if any) there. Remember, the burden of proof in article splitting lies on those proposing the split, and this discussion is exactly the one that should have happened before the first edit on Vodafone Global Enterprise. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The topic meets both the overall GNG and specific CORP requirements with ease. I can't see how the burden of proof is therefore on those who oppose a merge.
 * A merge of the article even in its current state would create an undue amount of coverage on the topic in the main Vodafone article, as well as a mess. It would also hinder proper expansion and development of coverage of the topic.
 * This is ignoring the fact that the article is capable of significant expansion using already available third party sources. And the fact that the company is shortly going to more than double in size as most of Cable and Wirless is folded into it.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this discussion is not a merge proposal, it is a validation of voluntary split, a third stage of WP:BRD process. And still you don't show why the development of the topic can't happen within Vodafone. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I appreciate your thoughts (of Mr. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff) and acknowledge your stand. Regarding the discussion to have happened now or earlier - it was started two years back - then it was redirected. As an user, an initiation was taken to branch out. And there is an objection, so we use the wiki method of reaching a consensus. A natural outcome. But we need a conclusion - so to make it more clearer, let us tackle this with some facts (in pieces). Please allow me to articulate - Fact no 1 : This is a business services division. A clear distinction and an unique factor from its parent Vodafone which is majority known for his mobile network and related services. Fact no. 2 : Operations and how it is geographically positioned. One example (just one among the numerous), Singapore - it is a place where there is no Vodafone network. It is structured to diversify its business services or Enterprise integration (EI) services into emerging markets. So what if a similar news Vodafone Global Enterprise Opens Regional Office in Singapore - a more significant news is released - example, Centre of Excellence is opened, in a country where Vodafone doesnt have network but would like to branch out using its EI services. Fact no. 3 Clear separate acquisitions for its VGE divsions, which it already done with a couple ( or atleast Bluefish). Fact no. 4 Solutions and services, future innovations related to EI, business services , unified communications solutions or which is separate from it core Vodafone business Fact no. 5 Splitting of assets ( of an acquisition) which will be highlighted in the history. Let us tackle these five facts as a start and I would appreciate your thoughts (Mr. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff) on this. Jean Julius Vernal 19:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Be my guest:
 * Regarding fact no. 1: VDE differs from Vodafone in that it only serves a share of the Vodafone's scope. The distinction between those two legal entities is administrative.
 * Regarding fact no. 2—5: I don't see how the coverage would change within a section of Vodafone and Vodafone Global Enterprise. Well, I see the difference: separate article would violate WP:CFORK. Nothing more.
 * Frankly, I see no need in reiterating the same very arguments in several comments. You state that the topic can't be covered in Vodafone and I say it can. Unless you specify the reason why some content can land in Vodafone Global Enterprise, but can't in, there is simply no topic in further discussion. Nuff said. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So fact 1 concludes VGE is not a stub. It is not mere scope. Diversifying into a major profit making division starts from its administration . In your comments in facts 2-5, regarding WP:CFORK, quote, unquote, Sometimes, when an article gets long (see Wikipedia:Article size), a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure. The new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article. Which echoes what Rangoon and me are trying to project. It is time for a spinoff. Why we need to make the Vodafone article messy plus weight age wont be given to VGE in an already long article.  Jean Julius Vernal 19:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also look at the position -, the structuring of the sub topic. Even if separate sub heading is given in Vodafone, it looks odd. Agreed from 2007 - 2011, but not in 2012 Jean Julius Vernal 20:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So you claim that the content can't land inside because there is no proper place for this section? Invalid claim, as per WP:SUMMARY you'll still have to find an appropriate place for this section.
 * Vodafone is too long? Splitting out history section would help more: it's times bigger and less relevant to the current Vodafone most readers are probably interested in.
 * Also note, that Vodafone article should give the readers the overall impression of Vodafone's business. Given that VDE is operated as department (as opposed to asset), it is a vital part of the article to be split out. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The history section of the Vodafone article is fundamental to the topic, all major companies have a fairly long history section and the Vodafone history section has not yet reached a point where a break out article is required. Even if it were, a fairly long history summary would still remain in the main article, probably no shorter than the present history.
 * VGE is currently just under 3% of Vodafone in terms of overall revenues, considerably smaller than many of its national operations such as South Africa, India, the UK, Germany, Italy and Turkey. Moving the content of this article into Vodafone would unbalance the main article and create an undue (as well as messy) presence for VGE. And would also hinder proper development of VGE content.
 * VGE is a notable topic in its own right, but a very small part of Vodafone overall. Contrary to what you suggest VGE is also run as a separate business with its own dedicated management. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your rationale is simply invalid. How is revenue related to WP:DUE? Sources are relevant, and sources-wise there is no problem for VGE. And the statement that company's history is more important then it's present activity is somehow, well, strange: the topic of the article is a present-day company, not historic (defunct) one. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Addressing to Mr. Czarkoff : Aesthetics, readability, flow of thoughts - it is a valid claim. Even if we merge, and in a case we reach a point - we need to create a spin out coz of the flow of events ( which it already is ), a question arises to create a new page. We will be back to square one - prompt another user to be wp:Be bold - recreate the content - redo everything. Forsee it now and dont stress and stretch an already long page( it is long and loosing its aesthetics / clarity) Jean Julius Vernal 21:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Addressing to Mr. Czarkoff : VGE is a division and pages already exist (even) for its subsidiaries.  And I agree to your point, quote, unquote, Given that VDE is operated as department (as opposed to asset), it is a vital part of the article to be split out And yes using WP:CFORK,  handle the subject in the main article as a condensed brief summary and spin out a new article.  Jean Julius Vernal 21:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Addressing to Mr. Rangoon11 : I agree to the points made - moving the content of this article into Vodafone would unbalance the main article and create an undue (as well as messy) presence for VGE. And would also hinder proper development of VGE content.  VGE is a notable topic in its own right  Jean Julius Vernal 21:02, 31 July 2012 (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.