Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aérospatiale-Matra

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 Airbus. Content may be merged to related articles from the page history at editorial discretion. T. Canens (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aérospatiale-Matra[edit]

[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)

The organisation discussed in this article only briefly (less than a year) traded under this name before rebranding as EADS, since rebranded as Airbus. Not every rebranding exercise mandates an individual article - the very brief amount of info here could just as easily be accommodated in the EADS, Aérospatiale, and Matra articles respectively. A comparison could be drawn with DASA, which does not have separate articles based solely around its short term rebranding exercises either Kyteto (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I agree, just not enough content for its own article, it should just be covered in the other articles.
~~Merge with~~ Redirect to EADS Mako/HEAT. This article is not justifiable and needs to be ~~merged~~ redirected, but there are complications. First, the EADS page is a redirect to Airbus, so the proposal to merge there cannot be delivered - al least, not as things stand. Second, EADS did produce one aircraft project of note, the EADS Mako/HEAT. My suggestion therefore would be to put all the EADS related information in one place; merge this article and much of the Airbus#History section in with the Mako/HEAT article, and update the EADS redirect accordingly. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[Update] There turns out to be nothing significant to merge. Turns out that it is covered more fully at History of Airbus, while the Aérospatiale and Matra articles also already cover it. I have added much the same brief account to EADS Mako/HEAT. I don't think anything more need be done beyond making this a redirect. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to EADS Mako/HEAT is unbelievably illogical.Mark83 (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect this is a notable company --Devokewater @ 15:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aérospatiale. This did not need to be a AfD Mark83 (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting to Aérospatiale is unbelievably illogical. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was unnecessary, however I could have been more constructive by explaining my thoughts: I feel that your argument that the short-lived incarnation of this company only produced one aircraft of note and thus this should be a redirect to the latter does not follow any logical path that a reader will follow or expect. Products will sometimes (for various reasons) be redirects to the company that made them, but company names redirecting to its products will rarely be sensible. Have you looked at what links here? Most, if not all, readers being redirected from a company name to EADS Mako/HEAT are going to be confused. And not my main point, but as an aside are you proposing adding a section to all those pages explaining the evolution of the name? Mark83 (talk) 06:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is usual with aircraft that, where the company is notable only through a single product, we cover it in the product's article. EADS renamed itself Airbus, which is the current redirect. However that article skims past aspects of EADS, such as its notable aircraft project. This despite the Mako being included in the navbox list of Airbus aircraft. So the confusion is already there in spades. If the Airbus article's treatment of EADS were expanded, I could live with that as the redirect's destination. On the other hand, Aérospatiale was not even a direct parent company, more of a grandparent, and its article rightly has less about EADS than even the Airbus one; it is surely the least logical choice, alongside of Matra. So you can perhaps begin to appreciate that my remark was rather more "necessary" than yours. If you disliked my choice of wording you have only yourself to blame, and that was a point I also felt was necessary to make. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"where the company is notable only through a single product" - well that's not the case here. But redirecting to , and explaining it in, the Airbus article sounds like the answer. Mark83 (talk) 11:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the predecessor and/or successor companies as appropriate. And redirect to the successor company (EADS, which in turn redirects to Airbus). Redirecting from a company to its product may be OK for short-lived companies which only produced one product, but not for short-lived names of companies which went on to produce numerous products under another name. Rosbif73 (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2020 (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.