| Revision as of 22:16, 10 October 2008 editEVil-Aer (talk | contribs)23 edits Debating,... Got a problem? | Revision as of 17:45, 8 March 2009 edit undoLavinhirani (talk | contribs)4 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| 3. MittalSteel had a different set of directors and executives than ArcelorMittal | 3. MittalSteel had a different set of directors and executives than ArcelorMittal | ||
| ] (]) 22:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC) | ] (]) 22:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| I have the same view i.e that Mittal Steel should not be merged into Arcelor Mittal as technically , legally and culturally they are different companies. Even if mittal steel does not extist anymore it does provide a useful antitheses for students and knowledge mongers alike to know what the older company was all about . | |||
Revision as of 17:45, 8 March 2009
Mittal Steel should not be merged into the article ArcelorMittal for the following reasons: 1. Arcelor has not been merged into ArcelorMittal's article. 2. MittalSteel was a past entity, and it's accomplishments cannot be combined with those of ArcelorMittal's 3. MittalSteel had a different set of directors and executives than ArcelorMittal EVil-Aer (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I have the same view i.e that Mittal Steel should not be merged into Arcelor Mittal as technically , legally and culturally they are different companies. Even if mittal steel does not extist anymore it does provide a useful antitheses for students and knowledge mongers alike to know what the older company was all about .