It appears that someone erroneously took two different companies, a NASDAQ case, and a private Irish one, into one article - rather than rewriting to be just one, the article needs to be split. And without promo language... SeoR (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
- On checking, no, the article seems accurate enough - but the focus should be weighted more towards the business after the spin-out, and a separate article for the Nadsaq-quoted business would still be appropriate. SeoR (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
- I think the article should be split. I will add a split template on the page to further the discussion. FFM784 (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Proposal to split Viatel Technology Group into Viatel Inc.
- Support - Viatel Inc. should have its own page considering its history, which is largely undocumented on Wikipedia at the moment. The existing page, Viatel Technology Holding should not be saddled with the history of Viatel Inc. since it was created out of a small part of what was left when the company was sold off. If I'm not mistake, they only purchased the Irish business and the name. FFM784 (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Support - Viatel Inc. was, briefly, a major tech play, and Viatel Tech. Group is a material player in one small market, the remnant of a remnant of the European business of the former, so clearly two articles would better handle the situation. SeoR (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Comment - Perhaps I'm missing something but, if the main topic of this article is "Viatel Inc" (its history/etc) and the "name only" holding company is not independently notable (and certainly less notable than "Viatel Inc"), would it not be better to simply move the article. And adjust the scope to reflect the new title? I mean, if the article is split, what would the "Viatel Technology Group" title possibly contain? Guliolopez (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Bump. @FFM784: It has now been over a year since you first opened this thread and proposed a split/change. As per my note above, if the main issue is that "Viatel Inc." is no longer covered by its own article and "Viatel Technology Holding" is largely a sub-set/off-shoot, then maybe solution is to retitle/move the article. So that it covers the parent. Rather than a split. Which might result in two relatively small and overlapping articles. If there are no other thoughts, I will go ahead with this shortly. Even if only as an interim solution. (Otherwise, leaving the tag and this open thread indefinitely, when already open for a year, doesn't seem the right course....) Guliolopez (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Apologies for allowing this thread to stay open for year. Please note that Viatel Inc. is not the parent of Viatel Technology Group. In fact, Viatel Inc., which as an entity in the U.S., no longer exists. Viatel Inc. has a long and storied history, which has largely been deleted on Wikipedia over the years from what I can see in the edits. I would still suggest that this article be split so that editors like myself can restore the history of Viatel Inc. If you are agreeable to this, please split the article since this is a skill that I have not yet mastered on Wikipedia. Thanks. FFM784 (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
- OK. No apologies necessary. In all honesty I think the main problem here is that several editors (including two whose user names indicate a connection to employees of the "remaining" Irish company) decided that "distance" was needed between the Irish brand and the original US brand. Frankly I do not think that the (relatively small 300-person) Irish company is worthy of its own standalone article. And so I don't think having a "Viatel Technology Group" and "Viatel Inc." article is the right way to go. Unless there are other thoughts, what I am going to do is summarise the (frankly quasi-promotional) stuff about the Irish company. And leave it as a sub-section. With Viatel Technology Group as a redirect to that section. And move/retitle this article to "Viatal Inc.". Effectively (at least partially) undoing this unilateral move (taken by an apparent COI editor) last year. If someone is sufficiently confident that "Viatel Technology Group" is sufficiently notable for a standalone article, then they can create it. Personally I don't think it is. And am certainly not going to be the one to create a standalone article (for a 300-person company where the only content is promotional puff about awards and acquisitions). Starting now... Guliolopez (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
- OK @FFM784. I've moved the article "back" to a title that reflects the primary scope (Viatel Inc. - the "original" US company). If someone feels strongly enough, that the "divested" 300-person Irish company (using the same brand name) is sufficiently notable for a standalone article (and there's enough to be said about it for a WP:SIZESPLIT), then they can start working on that themselves. Personally, as noted, I'm not seeing that the Irish company is sufficient notable for its own article. And is best covered as a redirect to a related topic. Feel free to start adding "back in" any of the stuff on the original company that was removed. Such removal being justified, seemingly, on the basis that the article scope was "unilaterally" changed. (As an aside: The (4x?) COI editors, all seemingly marketing team members of the company now using the "Viatel" brand name, should probably take a look at the related guidelines.) Guliolopez (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
