Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telewest

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. IrishGuy ^talk 22:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Telewest

Telewest (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

• Redirect Telewest should be deleted, as it is now Virgin Media. This page once deleted should redirect to Virgin Media as NTL: AND Virgin.net do. Please post you opinions. John John Owen14 (talk · contribs)
• Legitimate case of Speedy redirect. Was once a listed London cable franchisee which was caught up in the dot.com bubble. The name will mean something to a lot of Londoners and shareholders. Why does it need to be deleted prior to establishing redirect? Ohconfucius 08:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Article is still historically relevant. We don't merge people's biographies to Heaven when they die. Melchoir 08:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Not really the best example IMHO. The equivalent would be that we had two separate articles when someone changed their namePit-yacker 16:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

They didn't just change their name; it's complicated. Melchoir 20:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Changing their name is more accurate than saying that Telewest "died". AFAICT Telewest took over NTL, changed its name to NTL and then changed its name to Virgin Media. Perhaps on that basis this article should be at NTL? Pit-yacker 22:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Then why have Ntl and Virgin.net been deleted

• Keep No reason to delete this article, should be a redirect to Virgin Media at the very least. Catchpole 10:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect: IMHO the argument for keeping the old articles is flawed. The article as currently stands has more in common with Virgin Media than Telewest as this article had previously changed to reflect the harmonisation of products with NTL that occured long before the rebrand. Secondly, as I have previously said Virgin Media IS NTL and Telewest operating under a different name. As technically Telewest took over NTL (and then renamed itself NTL), Telewest has more claim to be Virgin Media than NTL. My third concern about having separate articles is that of consistency. I maintain that duplication in Wikipedia is a very bad thing. Since editors generally only edit one article, articles very quickly diverge, and inconsistencies appear. With two separate articles there is no way to avoid inconsistencies as the history of Telewest is directly relevant to Virgin Media. The pre-merger "lowest common denominator" of consensus of having a link to Telewest#History in NTL's history section was frankly quite silly. Pit-yacker 14:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not silly, but a good practice: summary style. The Virgin Media article is huge; why shouldn't it have more detailed and authoritative accounts of elements of its history to point to? Melchoir 20:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Having separate articles isnt silly. Having a {{main|Telewest#History}} in NTL is though. IMHO it makes for very poor flow with the article branching off into halfway through a separate article and then coming back for the rest of the section. If you want to break up the Virgin Media article, I would reccomend having whole sections eg an article History of Virgin Media. Pit-yacker 22:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Melchoir 23:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Telewest was a notable cable company. Keep it for historical reasons. Computerjoe's talk 17:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's a notable company with a very notable position in the history of Telecommunications in the UK. Also I notice that the article on Compaq has not been deleted. Compaq is only a brand name now, nothing else. Compaq has been totally swallowed by HP so surely if Telewest is deleted it will set a precedent for Compaq to get the bullet as well and be merged into HP, which shouldn't happen because Compaq is a dead company with a unique history that needs keeping, just like Telewest. -X201 22:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Difference is, AFAICT the Compaq brand is still in use. Pit-yacker 23:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: My point entirely. Shouldn't all the history be removed from it. Shouldn't the Compaq Article be the equivalent of "Was big, not now. Just a brand name" ? - X201 12:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: This article is important in that it describes a company that used to exist. AEMoreira042281 06:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and move to a History of Virgin Media article Regan123 16:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: this is still a valid historical article about a significant and notable once-independent company, even if it is now merged into a larger entity. Otherwise, by the same logic, we would have to delete General Post Office, because it no longer exists and its business is carried on by other entities, British Steel, National Coal Board likewise, and so on into absurdity. -- The Anome 19:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect This page should be redirected to Virgin Media then.
• Strong Keep Telewest Limited remains on the register at Companies House and there are 48 other companies incorporating the name Telewest. The fact that Telewest is now a subsidiary of Virgin Media does not prevent it remaining notable. Prior to amalgamations with NTL and then Virgin Media, Telewest was certainly notiable. That amalgamation doe not affect notability. Alternatively, Merge with Virgin Media as a separate section in that article. Peterkingiron 23:08, 13 March 2007 (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.