- 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. -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Cartus
- Cartus ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lacks reliable, independent sources. Since this is a business unit of a larger company, "stubbing" is not appropriate, per WP:BRANCH. No specific indication given of notability which is separate from Realogy. Grayfell ( talk) 20:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete nn. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - How does WP:BRANCH apply to a separate company? This is a subsidiary, but not an individual unit of the same company. My read on Branch is that it would apply to local units such as the "Local ???" of the UAW. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 22:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, but figuring out this company's status would require at least one source. The line between subsidiary and business unit is debatable anyway. The editor who removed the
WP:PROD suggested stubbing instead of deleting, but again, there are currently no sources at all. Per BRANCH:
Aim for one good article, not multiple permanent stubs
. Without any sources, there isn't any reason to think this could be made into a full-sized article, while the primary sources that were formerly in the article could, possibly, be used to add a few paragraphs to the parent company article. Grayfell ( talk) 00:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)- I see your point about the source, but I still do not see how BRANCH relates to companies. As stated previously, this is about stub organizations, not separate companies and although it is a subsidiary, it is a separate company. A "sub-unit" and "subsidiary" are two different things. A sub-unit is still within the same company while a subsidiary is merely owned by the company. I think it is a stretch to cite BRANCH in this instance. --
CNMall41 (
talk) 01:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- You're right, thank you. I had forgotten that BRANCH is specifically about non-commercial orgs, and the commercial parallel (
WP:CHAIN) is not relevant. What ORG is getting at still applies, though: A large company with many
WP:CORPDEPTH-compliant sources warrants its own article, subsidiary or not, while companies without sources don't. Without sources, the legal or internal distinction between a subsidiary and a branch is basically irrelevant. So is it notable enough for its own article? Should it just be mentioned in its parent company's article? Neither?
Grayfell (
talk) 01:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think you are right that this would warrant talk in the parent company article if it is not notable for its own article. It has a ton of press, but the "depth" is something that I question, hence why I did not leave a vote as of yet. I would say if there is something in depth, it could warrant a stand alone article, but absent WP:CORPDEPTH outside of the parent company, merging is the best route. Just my humble opinion, though. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 01:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- You're right, thank you. I had forgotten that BRANCH is specifically about non-commercial orgs, and the commercial parallel (
WP:CHAIN) is not relevant. What ORG is getting at still applies, though: A large company with many
WP:CORPDEPTH-compliant sources warrants its own article, subsidiary or not, while companies without sources don't. Without sources, the legal or internal distinction between a subsidiary and a branch is basically irrelevant. So is it notable enough for its own article? Should it just be mentioned in its parent company's article? Neither?
Grayfell (
talk) 01:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- I see your point about the source, but I still do not see how BRANCH relates to companies. As stated previously, this is about stub organizations, not separate companies and although it is a subsidiary, it is a separate company. A "sub-unit" and "subsidiary" are two different things. A sub-unit is still within the same company while a subsidiary is merely owned by the company. I think it is a stretch to cite BRANCH in this instance. --
CNMall41 (
talk) 01:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, but figuring out this company's status would require at least one source. The line between subsidiary and business unit is debatable anyway. The editor who removed the
WP:PROD suggested stubbing instead of deleting, but again, there are currently no sources at all. Per BRANCH:
- Delete - Unfortunately, I could not find anything in depth after an additional search. Willing to change !vote if someone can show me differently, but there just isn't anything that fits CORPDEPTH to justify its own article. I am willing to do the merging into the parent article if there is a consensus for that. Just leave a message on my talk page when this is over. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 19:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as aside from some links at Books, News, browser and Highbeam, there's nothing to suggest better improvement for this article which has quietly existed since February 2007. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 9 October 2015 (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.
- 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. -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Cartus
- Cartus ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lacks reliable, independent sources. Since this is a business unit of a larger company, "stubbing" is not appropriate, per WP:BRANCH. No specific indication given of notability which is separate from Realogy. Grayfell ( talk) 20:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete nn. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - How does WP:BRANCH apply to a separate company? This is a subsidiary, but not an individual unit of the same company. My read on Branch is that it would apply to local units such as the "Local ???" of the UAW. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 22:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, but figuring out this company's status would require at least one source. The line between subsidiary and business unit is debatable anyway. The editor who removed the
WP:PROD suggested stubbing instead of deleting, but again, there are currently no sources at all. Per BRANCH:
Aim for one good article, not multiple permanent stubs
. Without any sources, there isn't any reason to think this could be made into a full-sized article, while the primary sources that were formerly in the article could, possibly, be used to add a few paragraphs to the parent company article. Grayfell ( talk) 00:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)- I see your point about the source, but I still do not see how BRANCH relates to companies. As stated previously, this is about stub organizations, not separate companies and although it is a subsidiary, it is a separate company. A "sub-unit" and "subsidiary" are two different things. A sub-unit is still within the same company while a subsidiary is merely owned by the company. I think it is a stretch to cite BRANCH in this instance. --
CNMall41 (
talk) 01:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- You're right, thank you. I had forgotten that BRANCH is specifically about non-commercial orgs, and the commercial parallel (
WP:CHAIN) is not relevant. What ORG is getting at still applies, though: A large company with many
WP:CORPDEPTH-compliant sources warrants its own article, subsidiary or not, while companies without sources don't. Without sources, the legal or internal distinction between a subsidiary and a branch is basically irrelevant. So is it notable enough for its own article? Should it just be mentioned in its parent company's article? Neither?
Grayfell (
talk) 01:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think you are right that this would warrant talk in the parent company article if it is not notable for its own article. It has a ton of press, but the "depth" is something that I question, hence why I did not leave a vote as of yet. I would say if there is something in depth, it could warrant a stand alone article, but absent WP:CORPDEPTH outside of the parent company, merging is the best route. Just my humble opinion, though. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 01:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- You're right, thank you. I had forgotten that BRANCH is specifically about non-commercial orgs, and the commercial parallel (
WP:CHAIN) is not relevant. What ORG is getting at still applies, though: A large company with many
WP:CORPDEPTH-compliant sources warrants its own article, subsidiary or not, while companies without sources don't. Without sources, the legal or internal distinction between a subsidiary and a branch is basically irrelevant. So is it notable enough for its own article? Should it just be mentioned in its parent company's article? Neither?
Grayfell (
talk) 01:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- I see your point about the source, but I still do not see how BRANCH relates to companies. As stated previously, this is about stub organizations, not separate companies and although it is a subsidiary, it is a separate company. A "sub-unit" and "subsidiary" are two different things. A sub-unit is still within the same company while a subsidiary is merely owned by the company. I think it is a stretch to cite BRANCH in this instance. --
CNMall41 (
talk) 01:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, but figuring out this company's status would require at least one source. The line between subsidiary and business unit is debatable anyway. The editor who removed the
WP:PROD suggested stubbing instead of deleting, but again, there are currently no sources at all. Per BRANCH:
- Delete - Unfortunately, I could not find anything in depth after an additional search. Willing to change !vote if someone can show me differently, but there just isn't anything that fits CORPDEPTH to justify its own article. I am willing to do the merging into the parent article if there is a consensus for that. Just leave a message on my talk page when this is over. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 19:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as aside from some links at Books, News, browser and Highbeam, there's nothing to suggest better improvement for this article which has quietly existed since February 2007. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 9 October 2015 (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.