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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcom (disambiguation)[edit]

Broadcom (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Per WP:TWODABS, disambiguation is appropriately dealt with by hatnotes in the articles. A move request claiming otherwise did not gain consensus. Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 17:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KeepKeep-and-move TWODABS does not apply here because neither of the articles is primary over the other. (Please note that in the context of TWODABS, the pertinent definition of "primary" is Main; principal; placed ahead of others. and not The first in a group or series. In other words, just because the now defunct Broadcom Corporation predates its successor (Broadcom Limited), it does not make the former primary over the latter for the purposes of TWODABS. Please see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.) ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 13:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)  [reply]

Delete. SageGreenRider,I think you are making a common error in misunderstanding primary topic. The ONLY relevant meaning concerns how the articles are titled. By definition, the article at Broadcom is the primary topic for the term Broadcom. A recent requested move to change that failed. older ≠ wiser 13:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a circular argument. The fact is that Broadcom Corporation is not in fact primary over Broadcom Limited. My earlier failed move request was not debated widely enough. I'm hoping a proper debate will happen here. ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 13:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the requested move to change the primary topic failed. Until that changes, the primary topic is the article titled with the base name. older ≠ wiser 13:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then since the two are related, let's consider them both together. I propose that the disambig page be kept AND moved to Broadcom. And the incumbent article should be moved to its proper place, namely Broadcom Corporation.^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 13:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to revisit a recently closed move discussion. older ≠ wiser`

I believe it is and I am doing so. AfDs get a bigger audience and a broader consensus will be reached. ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 17:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think not, but you seem adept at not listening in any case, so whatever. older ≠ wiser 11:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did listen to you, but I didn't agree with you: listening ≠ agreeing. And enough with the ad hominem attacks, please.^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 12:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was meant as an observation, though admittedly a bit snarky. Move is not one of the typical outcomes of an AfD discussion. At best, an outcome of keep or no consensus to delete with no modification to the current disambiguation would result in an inconsistency with guidance at WP:TWODABS. As things currently stand, the disambiguation page is unused and should be deleted under current guidelines. older ≠ wiser 13:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a typical case, so why should we restrict ourselves to a typical outcome? Keep-and-move is the common sense solution in this case. You haven't addressed the substance of the issue, namely that Broadcom Corporation is not primary over Broadcom Limited. I'm not interested in red tape, only in serving our readers with clear navigational aids. And "you seem adept at not listening" is in fact a classic ad hominem attack.^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 13:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't anything particularly unusual about this case. Your previous attempt gain consensus for your position failed and you are attempting to re-argue the case here. I have no opinion as to whether either B corporation or B Ltd or neither is the primary topic. However, the previous request failed to gain consensus and until there is consensus to move the articles (which I don't think is appropriate to do through an AfD) the disambiguation page is superfluous. older ≠ wiser 13:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The previous debate didn't attract enough participants to form a proper consensus. In addition, I didn't open this debate, User:James Allison did. As a member of this community, I'm entitled to add my opinion, which is keep-and-move, to the debate here. And when my opinion differs from yours, I expect you to respect that, rather than have you accuse me of not listening to the latter.^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 16:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 13:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've no problem with your opinion that there is no primary topic. I do have a problem with your claim that WP:TWODABS doesn't apply in this case. older ≠ wiser 19:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TWODABS excludes itself for the case of no primary topic. It reads in part As discussed above, if an ambiguous term has no primary topic, then that term needs to lead to a disambiguation page. In other words, where no topic is primary, the disambiguation page is placed at the base name. and goes on to explain what to do if one topic is primary. The policy for the case of no primary topic is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which says in part If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page.^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 22:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you are misunderstanding twodabs. I understand that you are disgruntled about the article about the corporation being considered the primary topic. But so long as it is titled "Broadcom", it is by definition the primary topic for that term -- a hatnote at that article is sufficient for disambiguation and per TWODABS a separate disambiguation page is unnecessary. You failed to gain consensus to establish that Broadcom Corporation should not be the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 22:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no primary topic, and so the incumbent should not be there. The fact that there is an article where there should be a disambig page is a mistake. I am not disgruntled about the mistake. I'm only fearful that our readers will be confused by it and I'm trying to get community support here to correct it. If I fail, readers will suffer, but otherwise it makes no difference to me. I already know about the subject. ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 22:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there is an article where there should be a disambig page is a mistake. I understand this is your opinion. However, your attempt to change this did not gain consensus. Until the article title changes TWODABS applies regardless of your opinion. older ≠ wiser 00:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you believe that a given temporary consensus is infallible and that it always overrides reality. It does not. A cursory investigation of Broadcom Corporation versus Broadcom Limited would reveal to you that neither is primary over the other. ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 01:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I don't care a bit about whether either B corporation or B Ltd or neither is the primary topic. The point is that your proposal failed and an AfD really is not the right place for such a determination. Until that changes, there is no need for this extraneous disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 01:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing new so let's just agree to disagree. ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 01:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We don't need a disambiguation page when there's only two entries and a primary topic. If consensus changes such that there's no longer a primary topic, then we can make a dab page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very strange to see a disambiguation page for Broadcom. There are countless examples of companies buying and being bought where 1 company name remains. And I don't see disambiguation pages for those. I would support deletion of this page.

Can you give specific examples? In this case, the base name presently contains an article about a legal entity (Broadcom Corporation) that no longer exists. It was absorbed into Avago, which changed its name to Broadcom Limited. If no disambig, which article should be at the base name, in your opinion? ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 11:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteKeep perhaps as this seems convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 03:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom and per NinjaRobotPirate. This looks like an excellent example of where hatnotes are appropriate. It is more confusing to a reader to get a DAB page when searching for a major corporation. A separate discussion probably needs to be held regarding which Broadcom article ends up in primary if we can't agree here (personally, I lean towards Broadcom Limited, as it's most relevant today). That's my two cents. Chrisw80 (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. If my proposal here fails, I'll open a WP:MOVEREQ for Broadcom ==> Broadcom Corporation and then Broadcom Limited ==> Broadcom and see how that sits. Important note to closer If the decision is delete, could you please move it and, more importantly, its talk page to my user space because I would like to reference the failed move discussion there on a possible future (different) move proposal. Cheers! ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 11:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There are plenty of other similar business pages that have been acquired, yet do not have a disambiguation page. Let's maintain consistency. This is confusing for a reader. Meatsgains (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This case is different. The acquiring company (Avago) not only acquired Broadcom Corporation but also changed its name to the similar but different Broadcom Limited. The name of the article at Avago was (correctly) moved to Broadcom Limited, hence the need for clarification.^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 11:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like when SBC bought AT&T and then assumed that name?Chrisw80 (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. (Well the SBC case is even more complicated if you go back far enough because SBC was one of the seven baby bells spun out of AT&T by Judge Green's MFJ but I digress...) ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider

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.