Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BAE Systems Electronics and Integrated Solutions
- 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. Merge discussion, however, is strongly encouraged on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- BAE Systems Electronics and Integrated Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This was tagged for speedy deletion, which was contested, but no reasoning behind the contestation was provided. However, I think it best to take to AFD. Do we really need an article about a division of BAE? Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge - I agree that a speedy delete was not appropriate, but on the face of the article I can't see any assertion of independent notability or any reason that it shouldn't be merged back to BAE Systems Inc.- DustFormsWords (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/Merge per Mark83 below. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect back to BAE Systems Inc. Not a notable division on its own. Ditto its two sub-stubs BAE Systems Electronic Solutions and BAE Systems Platform Solutions. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Probably notable with 33,000 employees. Size doesn't guarantee notability, but it's a strong hint. -- Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep & Merge with Tracor in accordance with page 6 of this paper about the ownership of British defense contractors[1]. There is an indication that Tracor may be notable in its own right (see page 57 of this paper[2]) as a Business incubator. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep & Merge its subsidiary companies' articles into it - Employs 33,900 people. Has 100 sites in the US, UK & Israel. For year ended 2008 had sales of £4.4 billion, profit of £0.5 billion, and an order book of £5.2 billion. Producing the aerial warfare suite for the F-35, the biggest aircraft procurement in history by most measures. Website claims "a plane equipped with our engine controls takes off somewhere in the world every three seconds." There are many more ways in which this division is notable and I will produce a more exhaustive list if that is required. As one of the principal editors I'll admit that this is perhaps not properly established but I will work on it if the AfD debate results in the article being kept. Mark83 (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Do we really need this nomination? I think not as it fails to engage with the topic per WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. This is certainly badly written, and reads like PR puffery currently. Advertising is grounds for deletion of articles even if the underlying subject might be notable. The underlying business probably is notable, but I do not see the need for separate articles about each of its subdivisions. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whilst I agree that the article needs a lot of work please be careful about statements like "badly written", it's not particularly constructive. As for the need for separate articles, explaining the entire history/organisation of BAE Systems Inc in one article would be extremely difficult to understand and/or hard to navigate for a reader unfamiliar with the topic. This article deals with the electronics/avionics/IT side of BAE Systems Inc, to include all this information in full AND all the information relating to BAE's rapid rise as a land systems manufacturer on one page is, in my opinion, impossible to do in a way that's readable and easy to navigate. Sub-articles allow the information to be presented in a more organised methodical manner, i.e. summary style on BAE Systems Inc. Mark83 (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It is badly written. I tried to purge the article of "solution"-speak, but have apparently been reverted. "Support Solutions" isn't English for a dry dock; as far as I can tell it means nothing at all. If kept, that kind of patent nonsense needs to be vigorously scrubbed from the article. In its current state, it probably does qualify for speedy deletion as advertising, regardless of notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As per User:Arsenikk below, "Solutions" is only used in the article as headings for legal company names. You quote WP:WTA, but that says not to use it in prose, it says nothing about quoting acutal company/division names. The actual prose does not say division X provides solutions etc. BAE uses "Solutions" in the name of many of its divisions, e.g. BAE Systems Military Air Solutions, BAE Systems Customer Solutions, BAE Systems Submarine Solutions. Do you suggest we change these to omit the word solutions? Of course not, because that would not be encyclopedic. The headings on this article are totally analogous. Mark83 (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It is badly written. I tried to purge the article of "solution"-speak, but have apparently been reverted. "Support Solutions" isn't English for a dry dock; as far as I can tell it means nothing at all. If kept, that kind of patent nonsense needs to be vigorously scrubbed from the article. In its current state, it probably does qualify for speedy deletion as advertising, regardless of notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree it is hard to describe the entire historical content in one article, maybe the solution is to have several articles on business areas dicussion origin and historical relevance. I would look up a business here for those reasons if I was doing some research on them. Furthermore, while not proposed as a marketing piece, again for business research would like to know what they do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.32.192.33 (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whilst I agree that the article needs a lot of work please be careful about statements like "badly written", it's not particularly constructive. As for the need for separate articles, explaining the entire history/organisation of BAE Systems Inc in one article would be extremely difficult to understand and/or hard to navigate for a reader unfamiliar with the topic. This article deals with the electronics/avionics/IT side of BAE Systems Inc, to include all this information in full AND all the information relating to BAE's rapid rise as a land systems manufacturer on one page is, in my opinion, impossible to do in a way that's readable and easy to navigate. Sub-articles allow the information to be presented in a more organised methodical manner, i.e. summary style on BAE Systems Inc. Mark83 (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is hard to see how a division with a £4.6 billion and 33,000 employees is not notable. BAE Systems is a featured article, and it is difficult to see how the vast potential for the nominated article could be incorporated into the main article without it suffering from undue weight. It is clear that to cover huge multinationals, such as BAE, the information must be split up into smaller chunks, through their own article, which can cover the smaller specifics of the corporation. Choosing a division is uncontroversial and logical segment to create as a subarticle, particularly when this division both has an industrial and geographic limitation. If other people are concerned about the prose quality of the article, be bold and improve it; bad quality of prose has never been a deletion criteria. I totally agree that the number of buzz words could be reduced, but if the company choses to call its dry dock division "support solutions", then at least mentioning this term has to be permitted. Overall, the article is factual and neutral, and in no way resembles an advertisement. Arsenikk (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.