Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ITT Avionics

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 ITT Corporation. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ITT Avionics

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

~~Delete~~ Redirect, nothing to merge This sub-organization does not have "significant independent coverage". The current sources are either local newspaper articles ("attention solely from local media...is not an indication of notability" (WP:CORP)), and the NY Times article doe not discuss the company but rather one facility, and falls under "notices of facility openings or closings".

Concerning other hits on Google News, they are almost all mentions of contracts awarded to this particular division of ITT Corporation, and they do not establish a basis of notability separate from that of the parent company. See "Local units of larger organizations".

Ohspite (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

After reading the points below I think that it would be good to redirect to ITT Corporation (or maybe Exelis when that page is made), but I have the same doubts about merging any content. What content currently exists on this page is routine business news. If the parent article included an organization section (maybe something like Aerospace_Corporation#Organization) it could be included as a former division, but that would require a another level of depth in the organization tree to include a division without notable products or history. Ohspite (talk) 05:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Keep. ITT avionics has plenty of New York Times, Sun , etc. third-party coverage. I leave it to the author to incorporate the links I provide here to the article.

* [1]

* [2]

* [3]

* [4]

* [5]

* [6]

* [7]

* [8]

Do not confuse your own lack of knowledge on a topic with non notability at large. Cheers --GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 09:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You simply have to stop making comments like this. It is uncalled for, inappropriate, and undermines your arguments. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge/Redirect to ITT Corporation. The sources GPF supplies above are, in no particular order, press releases, photo captions, a mention in a wedding announcement (seriously?), and a very brief 1993 paragraph in the NYT about layoffs. If anyone finds more substantial coverage not sourced directly from the company, or not incidental in nature, then sure, keep, but until such time, no. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reliability in sources. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones? I'm curious. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing is mocking the details to discredit the whole. This is but an attempt to reinforce a Confirmation bias. You asked for it, so I added a list of reliable notable third-party sources. Cheers --GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Politely asking someone to support their argument does not constitute mockery or an informal fallacy. Labeling it as such in order to dismiss the question, however, does. Ohspite (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I won't feed you. over and out --GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the actual evaluation of the sources by ginsengbomb, as opposed to a blind faith "there are sources" Yaksar (let's chat) 23:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to ITT Corporation. The Steve 01:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Zounds. Duh. Obvious. Thank you. Modifying vote. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage has been found and presented that they got a $24.9 million contract from the US military for a project, plus other activities of the company. Dream Focus 02:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to this, please note that that appears to be a picked up press release. The source is listed as "ITT Industries," and there is an "About ITT Industries" section. Additionally -- and this is perhaps the most important point -- the press release is essentially about ITT Industries. It mentions that their "Avionics Division" will perform the contract.

Regarding "other activities of the company," there are definitely mentions of other activities in some of the other sourcing above, which is why I think anything verifiable should be merged to the article on their parent company, ITT Corporation. I do note that the Bergen Record may have devoted a full article to a contract they received in 1991.

I'm not at all sure why we need a separate article on one division of a company, particularly given what is frankly pretty weak coverage. The division currently doesn't get a single mention in the article on the parent corporation -- which is a flaw of the parent corporation article that I suggest addressing via a merge and redirect. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to ITT Corporation. A few incidental references don't warrant an article. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Notability is a red herring; in this case the most logical place to cover a division about the corporation is in the article about the corporation; the article is not so large that it needs to be spun out at this time. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:47, 5 November 2011 (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.