Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volt Workforce 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 delete for lack of independent notability. Der yck C. 16:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Volt Workforce Solutions

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTABILITY - gnews hits are all press releases, job listings, or minor mentions; ghits quickly come down to database entries and other minor matters. Nat Gertler (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subsidiary of another non-notable business. Contains an entirely unreferenced history section, suggesting conflict of interest. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. One note above says "gnews hits are all press releases, job listings, or minor mentions." The link confirming "11th largest staffing company" is to a list produced by the industry's primary trade group, and it's a list of largest staffing companies. (Every listing is a "minor mention".) The historical information links to the company's website because it is the most comprehensive compilation of the company's history.

Volt Workforce Solutions is indeed a subsidiary of Volt Information Sciences, but it is the customer-facing (and largest) division, and because of its corporate scope (employment agency), we feel Wikipedia readers may want to find information on the company. A cursory glance of Wikipedia content shows that many company's subsidiaries are included on the site (Sikorsky, a subsidiary of United Technologies, has a page; Avanade, a subsidiary of Accenture, has a page.) WReagan (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A simple inclusion on a list is a minor mention; it is not the sort of in-depth coverage that WP:NCORP calls for. The fact that the list is numbered does not make it significant. Subsidiaries certainly aren't barred from having their own pages, so long as the subsidiary itself is sufficiently notable. For example, there are chapters in aviation history books just about Sikorski. If a subsidiary is not notable on its own, however, it ought not get its own article; subsidiaries of notable companies can get coverage in the main company's article, which is what I earlier recommended for VWS, although others have now raised the question of VIS's own notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Being on a list is not significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2012 (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.