Talk:BearingPoint
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Edit war?
Looking in the edit history, there seems to be an edit war. I'm contacting User:Diegorivera2 and User:High on a tree. Hopefully, this will be resolved without any need to escalate per the Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.47.86.4 (talk • contribs).
[edit] Proposed merger of BearingPoint Infonova
Infonova is described as a wholly-owned subsidiary of BearingPoint. Instead of Infonova having its own article, it would be more appropriate for it to be given a section in the main article. On its own, Infonova may not satisfy WP:CORP. Accurizer 10:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] do not think so
Gentlman! I am new in contributing an article so I am happy about help. But BearingPoint and BearingPoint Infonova are not the same companies. It`s true, that Infonova is a subsidiary of BE, but Infonova is not a traditionell conulting company, Infonova is an IT consultant with it`s own solution as described in the article. So to differentiate Infonova got it's own webpage [1] and I think should have it's own article in wikipedia. Thomas.russ 12:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think the decision on whether or not to merge the articles has to be based on whether or not BearingPoint Infonova satisfies WP:CORP on its own. Under "Criteria for companies and corporations," it could not satisfy criteria 2 or 3. Under "Criteria for products and services," I don't see how it satisfies criteria 2. Therefore, in order to retain a separate article, we would need to demonstrate how it satisfies criteria 1 in either category. My attempt to do this has not been fruitful. Google News is usually helpful in determining whether criteria 1 has been met, but Google News provides only one hit for Infonova. Unless someone can provide better evidence I would think a merger would have to occur. Accurizer 13:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merger reasonable, dropping the article not
Well ... an article for BearingPoint INFONOVA might not be appropriate however the solution portfolio - as far as I understand the current website - differs from the overall portfolio.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.218.173.39 (talk • contribs).
[edit] Infonova instead of BearingPoint Infonova
Would it be ok to change the title of the article in INFONOVA only? As you see on the websites, BearingPoint is an typical consulting company. Infonova however is providing products and integration services - something completely different.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.3.81.38 (talk • contribs).
- I don't think moving the article to "Infonova" would be appropriate, given that the company's website uses the name "BearingPoint Infonova." However, I don't think there would be anything wrong with creating an "Infonova" redirect page that points to the "BearingPoint Infonova" article, and I have done so. Accurizer 13:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Content Removed: Inaccurate or Scrubbed?
Some negative content has been removed from the article and replaced with positive information. The editor, User_talk:Mark bowerman cites the reason for the edit as:
refreshed copy of company description and capabilities to reflect current position in the consulting services market and a correction of an inaccuracy
However, no note of what the inaccuracy is has been placed in this discussion. It seems like the edit is a violation of NPOV, but I want to get a sense of what other editors think of this before this gets escalated, per Wikipedia policy. This page has been place on the RfC page.21:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, and now this link has disappeared from external links: Windfalls of War - The Center For Public Integrity And the reason given was: (→External links - Removed for link to slanted article)
I need some help calling this one, because it really seems like all the negative information is being weeded out and replaced with press-release material.21:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral Point of View in question
I upped the ante on the NPOV, since another piece of negative information has been removed without justification. If the previous editors could submit a justification (other than negative information being "slanted",) that will keep this from being escalated up to arbitration. Right now, the article is nearly indistinguishable for a press release and efforts to remove negative facts consitute Bias in the Commercial sense. See here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.237.178.229 (talk • contribs).
- This article sounds like something from their corporate web site. Giveaway lines that reek of corporate-speak include "The solutions portfolio of BearingPoint" "a Carrier-Grade Next Generation OSS/BSS solution with a proven track record in live environments", "a fully integrated system, delivering a full range of customer management". No, doesn't tell me anything about what they do either.
- I'm working for an Infonova client so might be able to improve this section. Shermozle 04:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Agree. BearingPoint is in severe trouble at the moment. It missed it's 10-K deadline, it had a huge employee turnover Q2-2006, severe underperformance relative to estimates, and Moody's downgraded it from B2 to B1 and flagged it for watch for future downgrades. The general opinion in the financial world is... BearingPoint will be bought back out of the public. Yet this articles paints a nirvana company!? └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 00:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Redirect
Someone should add a redirect from Bearing Point to this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.136.196.84 (talk • contribs).
- Done, thanks for the suggestion. Accurizer 13:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)