Talk:HP Inc.

In 2015 HP "split" but strictly speaking it involved the spin-off of part of its business which became Hewlett-Packard Enterprise. ^[1][2] The HP press release says that "HP (to be renamed HP Inc.) will continue to trade on the NYSE under the ticker symbol “HPQ”."^[3] The old HP was simply renamed legally to 'HP Inc.' while spinning off a part of the business. It continued to trade with the same stock symbol, and it continued to use that same HP circle logo and brand (and the Hewlett-Packard name), while HPE went into another direction.

So I think we shouldn't have a separate article. the original HP did not 'cease to exist' in 2015, it was simply restructured and was legally renamed. Also take PRIMARYTOPIC into account, with the Hewlett-Packard article getting a lot of views and having a lot of content despite being "defunct".

FYI the German and Polish wikipedia articles for HP did not split them - the Polish article starts off as HP Inc. (prior to 2015: Hewlett-Packard Company), and that's how I think we should do ours too. Chiffonr (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Strictly Oppose Hewlett Packards article and HP Inc.s article are just too big to combine together. Both have a completely separate history, and HP Inc. is legally separated from Hewlett Packard Company. It's not a good idea. WiinterU (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, per the last paragraph. No, think before you speak. Just because one version of Wikipedia does something doesn't mean we should do the same thing. Merging articles removes important information. WiinterU (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Another thing, this has been brought up before. I am confused why you would decide to bring this up again. WiinterU (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose – Even though the original company technically still exists, virtually all reliable sources characterize its split as one that effectively created two new separate companies rather than a simple spinoff, with some heralding it as the end of the old HP or (at least) the end of an era; examples include The Wall Street Journal, Vox, Reuters, KCBS, Fortune, Computerworld, and TechRadar, with the old HP affirming such views in an investor presentation (as seen in Ars Technica). As for Wikipedia in other languages, the point is moot since each of them have their own standards for notability; since this article is on the English Wikipedia, we need to evaluate it by the English standards, and the often-complex nature of corporate histories means that there is no one-size-fits-all standard that can be applied across all companies. With that said, I doubt the overall sentiment has changed since the last time this merger was proposed. CascadeUrbanite (talk) 07:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I think even if you're convinced that it was a split, we should remember that for the average person who doesn't know about the legal company stuff, HP has remained HP. The brand, the industry, it is the same as before. That weakens the case of if you genuinely believe it was a split. An article like AOL hasn't been divided either despite also technically the original company no longer 'existing'. --Chifonr (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

"The average person" would know about HP mostly from its personal computer and printer product lines. HP itself didn't enter such markets until the 1980s; the company itself was mainly focused on scientific and business equipment until then. In terms of successorship, I think the 2015 split resembles Motorola's 2011 split, which also produced two successor companies; the only major difference was that Motorola sold off what it was most known for among the general public while HP kept it, though one could argue that HPE received some noteworthy products that the general public previously associated with HP. Regardless, I think the average person would recognize that the HP of today isn't the HP that existed post-Compaq merger. CascadeUrbanite (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The thing is the 1980s was over 30 years (a whole generation) prior to the 2015 "split". It weakens the case as a result. Your last sentence is one I definitely disagree with, that people view this as the same company as it was at least around the Compaq merger. We definitely need some more people to come here and voice their views about this matter. Chifonr (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Pinging prior discussion members: BrandonXLF, Dicklyon, Guy Harris, SMcCandlish, Alex rosenberg35, Steven (Editor), Dgennetten, and Alexceltare2.

@Chifonr: Assuming you and Chiffonr are the same editor (judging by the edit histories), I highly suggest creating a user page to clarify your use of multiple accounts under WP:VALIDALT to avoid accusations of WP:SOCK. CascadeUrbanite (talk) 05:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes they are the same, I've been locked out of the old one (Chiffonr). Thanks for the warning, I'll write it in my userpage. Chifonr (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Wait, why am I dragged into this? Alexceltare2 (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Alexceltare2 You participated in the the last merger discussion in support of it. I decided to ping all of those participants to see if the overall sentiment among you guys has shifted since then. CascadeUrbanite (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I see. Yeah, i still support the merger. Simply because it's the same company but different subsidiaries. A whole article wouldn't be necessary and would cause confusion. Alexceltare2 (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I stil oppose the merger even after seeing the discussion grow. MrNoobNub2 (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

"The average person" doesn't matter. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Company are legally seperate. WiinterU (talk) 13:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, The Hewlett-Packard company split into two, HP being one of them. HP is only part of Hewlett-Packard, not the same business. MrNoobNub2 (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Assuming that you're right, HP legally split in the strict sense, but it may not need apply in Wikipedia if it is unnecessarily complicates it. The HP split case is weakened by the same brand still used and the language about HPE being "spinoff" that has raised the question in the first place. Chifonr (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Weak oppose. I don't feel terribly strongly about this. The OP raises some valid points, but there really is no hard-and-fast rule to follow on a matter like this. Arguments can be made in either direction. What we have now is a Hewlett-Packard (original company) article the lead of which makes clear that "On November 1, 2015, Hewlett-Packard was split into two separate companies; its enterprise products and services business were spun-off to form Hewlett Packard Enterprise, while its personal computer and printer businesses became HP Inc." And we have a fairly well-developed separarate article now for HP Inc. (and one for HPE). This situation is not objectively broken in any way. It's not our fault that HP decided, basically, to do something that's quite confusing. We just have to make the best of it. It would be possible to merge the HP Inc. article into the original-company article, but it would make it quite long, and this might ultimately just necessitate another spin-out into a separate article. We spin off "side" articles all the time, even for subtopics of a topic (which this could be considered, depending on your viewpoint), and this is not a problem. The problem is when one unrelated topic is glommed onto another; we call that a WP:COATRACK. But performing the merge would not be a coatrack, since the topics are in fact closely intertwined. A WP:N argument can be made: it is obviously true that "Hewlett-Packard" (original company), "HP Inc." and "Hewlett Packard Enterprise" all separately and severably meet the WP:GNG criteria of sufficient in-depth coverage in numerous independent, reliable sources. So, there really is no question about whether it is permissible for these subjects to be separate articles. The question is just the editorial judgment one of whether this three-article situation is what is best for the readers, and I lean toward thinking it is, because HP Inc. is markedly different from the original Hewlett-Packard – arguably more so than Hewlett Packard Enterprise is, since H-P originated in what we today call "enterprise" products, not the computer-and-peripheral stuff that HP Inc. is focused on. Maybe one could even argue that Hewlett Packard Enterprise should merge into Hewlett-Packard instead. (But I'm not actively suggesting that.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose – The info at Hewlett-Packard is extensive, mostly historic, and mostly irrelevant to today's HP Inc. The split into HP Inc and HPE is a good point to draw the line, in spite of the continuity of legal entity and stock symbol. Dicklyon (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)