Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of acquisitions by Juniper Networks/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 07:12, 11 April 2009 [1].
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the FL criteria -- Tinu Cherian - 05:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are there no mergers to speak of? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There were no mergers as of now , known -- Tinu Cherian - 01:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There was a divestiture, though, which is something that belongs under a "mergers and acquisitions" list. This was the only one that I could find. Gary King (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Although this list does not list mergers, the lead can be substantially expanded to tell more about the history of the company and more information about the merges, as it is in the List of mergers and acquisitions by Adobe Systems FL.--₮RUCӨ 04:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The only divestitue known is already added at List_of_acquisitions_by_Juniper_Networks#Other_deals , not sure whether it can be called as a 'merger'. Should more to the history be added to lead section of this list or it is better to remain at Juniper Networks main article ? ( I am willing to add it still..) One reference model to this is list is another FL article List of acquisitions by Cisco Systems.-- Tinu Cherian - 10:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that was passed almost a year ago, which is when the criteria wasn't as strict. Right now, the lead in this article (and the other) one really doesn't say much, it needs more of a summary of its acquisitions. Not just 3 of them.--₮RUCӨ 15:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Roger that ! I will work on it -- Tinu Cherian - 04:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What about now ? -- Tinu Cherian - 05:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Any other suggestions ? -- Tinu Cherian - 02:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What about now ? -- Tinu Cherian - 05:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Roger that ! I will work on it -- Tinu Cherian - 04:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that was passed almost a year ago, which is when the criteria wasn't as strict. Right now, the lead in this article (and the other) one really doesn't say much, it needs more of a summary of its acquisitions. Not just 3 of them.--₮RUCӨ 15:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
--₮RUCӨ 02:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--₮RUCӨ 20:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support-- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards. Great work.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 14:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was a bit skeptical about this against 3b, but it seems fine. Still support.--Truco 14:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
Sources
Dabomb87 (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Juniper Networks contains a similar (albeit unformatted) list, so I'm wondering why the table can't just be re-added to that one. I'm bringing this up because there is a discussion at WT:WIAFL about changing the criteria so that unnecessary splits can't become FLs. I don't want to promote any lists that could end up at FLRC in a few months. (I'll leave the closing of this one to Matthewedwards though). -- Scorpion0422 21:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I may disagree to this, as much of the content to the aquisitions section of Juniper Networks was added by me and later I decided to make a clean list after seeing FLs in Category:Lists of corporate acquisitions. -- Tinu Cherian - 03:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because other pages were split, it doesn't mean this one needs to be. -- Scorpion0422 15:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the valuable suggestions, comments and support. I hope most of the suggestions are taken care. -- Tinu Cherian - 04:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the changes to the FL criteria, I still believe this article warrants being a stand-alone list. Therefore, my support stands. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.