Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xfinity Mobile

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 redirect to Xfinity. Sandstein 13:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xfinity Mobile

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Declined AFC submission from Draft:Xfinity Mobile, with last declination: "The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Xfinity Mobile." The mainspace version was copied from the draft without attribution, and is not a substantial improvement over the draft. BilCat (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Adds nothing over its previous iteration. ViperSnake151 Talk 23:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The AFC tool misbehaved when I declined. I was trying to state that it should be merged into the article at Xfinity. As I noted in my decline comment, a reader is better served to be taken to a paragraph in a longer article than to be taken to a one-paragraph stub from which they can navigate to a parent article. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Xfinity, which was my original recommendation at AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a manual redirect of the article before filing the AFD, but was reverted by the creator in question without comment. I considered a formal Merge discussion, but after seeing the three declines of the AFC, I felt an AFD was warranted to keep the article from being recreated again at a later date by another user without discussion. Note that I'm not opposed to having an article on the Xfinity Mobile service, but at this time it isn't warranted. - BilCat (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by original AfC Submitter

Hi Bkissin,

I saw that the Xfinity Mobile article was rejected and wanted to provide more context and hopes that you’ll reconsider.

Reason for rejection: The content already exists on the Xfinity Wikipedia page (parent company) and /Xfinity_Mobile redirects to that parent company's page. Being that Xfinity Mobile is a subsidiary, I believe that it should qualify for its own Wikipedia article, separate from the parent company. The company information, including the info box, would better serve people with a dedicated page.

Please let me know your thoughts and thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsandsources (talk • contribs) 20:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I appreciate the open dialog and continued guidance for this article. If the primary concern is insufficient content, I can contribute additional copy and sources to the existing page. As with most articles, over time I anticipate that other authors may standardize and add content to the article too. The company's core information differs from the parent company (much like other subsidiaries) and if it's written correctly, I believe it would serve the community better as it's own entity article. I apologize for the short term inconvenience and appreciate your continued direction. I'll add additional unique content to this page to help meet the standards of the community. Factsandsources (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Xfinity While I appreciate the user's devotion to the topic, my opinion hasn't changed since the original decline. There isn't enough information in the article to warrant a fork from the existing Xfinity article. The Xfinity Mobile article is largely a copy-paste of the Xfinity Mobile section in the original article. I'm not opposed to revisiting this topic later if a content fork is needed, but the arguement that a subsidiary needs a separate article does not work with me. Companies like Coca Cola and Deloitte have regional subsidiaries in other countries, and those would be redirected to the parent company's article.
Update - I totally understand your concern for duplicate content and hope to resolve this issue. I've updated the existing article with new content, info box edits, and additional sources. For the subsidiaries mentioned, they likely operate with the same services and products. I do understand the need to redirect particular articles to parent companies. In this scenario, the service, products and market is completely different than the parent company. Please review my edits when convenient, I'm happy to expand and refine this article until the community is comfortable with it being live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsandsources (talk • contribs) 02:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand why you felt the need to recreate article instead of continuing to work on the draft. That's the proper place to work on an incomplete article. - BilCat (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I understand the frustration but the article already existed before my edits. I've updated and expanded the content and sources again to meet the standards of the community. Please review when you're able. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsandsources (talk • contribs) 15:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Xfinity, they don't even have their own network, I believe they use Verizon's--Rusf10 (talk) 03:57, 7 March 2019 (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.