Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acquisition of WWE by Endeavor


 * 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 merge‎ __EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to WWE as well as Endeavor (company). The OTHERSTUFF arguments were given very little weight as was any snark about people not being "real fans". I considered the draftify arguments, but found that much of their worries would be satisfied by this being a section of the parent articles that is worked on and gets spun off in the future when there is more coverage. Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Acquisition of WWE by Endeavor

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Far too soon for this article, there is currently fewer than 10 sentences about the acquisition, this can clearly remain in the respective articles until a content fork is required All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Business,  and Wrestling.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep/Objection/Comment: A precedent of Disney's purchase of the entertainment unit of 21st Century Fox, I recommend to retain the article to expand further. -174.89.100.11 (talk) 04:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, blank, redirect for now — Redirects are cheap, plausible search term, has potential for becoming a real article someday. Deletion would serve no purpose here. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  05:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Draftify and rename to 'Merger' I agree this article has potential, but it's about a proposed merger, it hasn't even been approved yet. Nswix (talk) 06:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge with WWE - This article lacks potential to be a real article on its own, best merge it with WWE for now. Deleting this article altogether serves no purpose. Hansen Sebastian Talk 10:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Precedent has been set by Disney's acquisition of Fox and its associated article. The article should be expanded and not deleted as there is more information about the merger/acquisition on the individual WWE, UFC, and Endeavour pages than in this article. The information adds to the unnecessary bloat found on the three other articles but would be beneficial if moved to this article. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST is an argument to avoid. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability of this specific event is demonstrated through multiple major secondary sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well it's a good job I'm not arguing against the notability of it then isn't it, or I'd have egg all over my face right now. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @ItsKesha Stop trying to influence the opinion of others please, you act like a new fan and have zero respect for historic events like these. Dilbaggg (talk) 03:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @ItsKesha I took a second look, you are not disputing the notability I see, then ok I am sorry, your main concern is that its too soon but the process has been initiated and the deal finalized per corporate laws, and thus this historic article must stay. Best wishes. Dilbaggg (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep WWE founded as WWWF in 1963 by Vince J, later bought by Vince K in 1982 had been run for 40 years under him 1982-2022. He made the company public in 1999 the same year I started watching. It is the largest professional wrestling organization in the world and UFC is the largest Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) organization in the world and a merger between these two Kingpins of combat sports is one of the most WP:Notable and is supported by numerous WP:RS and historic event ever in the history of wrestling, MMA and sports in general. This should definitely stay and be seen as a landmark in both Wrestling and MMA projects as well as corporate merger and acquisition, with Endeavor owning 51% shares, first time the McMahons have minority shares and now the means of operations are going to be different. This is highly significant to WikiProject Professional wrestling. Best wishes all.   Dilbaggg (talk) 03:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * that's all great, but this is still just a proposed merger. It hasn't been approved by anyone yet. Nswix (talk) 04:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The deal has been done and is set to be effective soon, there is no backing out of the commitment with Endeavor will pay $ 9.1 billion and becoming 51% of the shareholder. This is corporate law and there is no backing out, just because some people perceive it not being complete doesn't change anything, it is an unfolding event, and there is no backing out of the deal as per corporate law ans the process has been initiated and updates will continue to be added to the article. Dilbaggg (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What 'corporate law' are you talking about that supercedes the need for both shareholders of Endeavor and WWE need to vote to approve the deal and for regulators to sign-off on the merger? Nswix (talk) 05:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The process has already been initiated and will be finalized on the 2nd half this year, and there is no backing out and this is all supported by WP:RS and meets WP:Notable guidlines so it should be left alone, anyway i already gave my vote, best wishes. Dilbaggg (talk) 05:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody has argued that there aren't sources or that it isn't notable. This comment is a massive waste of time. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - If the editor proposing this deletion put more effort into reading my words than planning a snarky comeback, they would see that I specified that there are sufficient sources (and, thus, sufficient content) for this specific event to have an article. As such, I'm saying that the proposal to keep the information in other articles is not the best path forward. This editor is pushing for deletion based on an essay. I'm pushing for inclusion based on GNG. If the editor prefer essays (although closing administrators won't find them as compelling), they could check out WP:POTENTIAL. Certainly, regardless of how the even turns out, the acquisition has already got significant mainstream coverage, with a reasonably certain guarantee of a significant amount of mainstream coverage to come. However, even in its current state, it more that meets the threshold for a stand-alone article. Further, I would suggest that a closing administrator might be wise to look at the conduct of the proposing editor and consider whether they are not here to build an encyclopedia, comparing their hostile editing style (both in their responses here and in their long-term conduct on Wikipedia) against WP:NOTHERE and paying particular attention to such items as "Treating editing as a battleground", "Little or no interest in working collaboratively", and "Major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention". Perhaps this will reveal that an indefinite block is long overdue. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm pushing for deletion on the basis that there is simply not enough information to necessitate a content fork. If the editor questioning this had put more effort into reading 30 words he would understand this. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In saying that, I also find proposals for a merge highly acceptable. How's that for working in collaboration. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - There's enough here to satisfy notability requirements. Although the merger isn't yet finalized, this is already an independently notable story regardless of what comes next.LM2000 (talk) 06:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There's currently six paragraphs of information, three of which are two sentences or fewer in length. I'm not arguing whether it's notable enough for inclusion, so do you think this is enough information at present to warrant a content fork? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I would rather have a short one paragraph summary on the parent articles with a main article link to this one, as opposed to including this level of detail on the parent articles. A merge would not be the end of the world at this point but I think it would be pointless as eventually another article will created to detail further developments.  I'm in the weak keep camp, my secondary choice would be to draftify.LM2000 (talk) 09:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge to Endeavor_(company). Sure, this news event has enough coverage to pass GNG, but this coverage is also notability for Endeavor (company) and WWE. As most of this page is redundant background and redundant to Endeavor_(company), I see no reason for a duplicative page that per WP:NOPAGE does not need a standalone article. Reywas92Talk 17:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment @ItsKesha's main objection is that he finds this Wp:Too Soon, but thats his views, there are plenty of information and this meets WP:Notable,, WP:V, Wp:RS and all major encyclopedic guidelines. This is a historic event in not just WWE but pro wrestling in general, a merger with UFC might even bring irl shoot fight style wrestling in WWE similar to Brawl For All. The largest wrestling promotion being sold is historically significant and that is acknowledged throughout the pro wrestling world and deserves its own article. This article is as significant as Acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney and has changed the wrestling event forfever. The corporate sale has been reached Endavour would hold 51% shares and higher voting power, it is a significant and historic change, please ItsKesha learn to respect history and also you did agree on the WP:Notability of this but just feel its too soon, but the deal is confirmed and the more things go the more they will be added in compliance with WP:RS and this is indeed a great encyclopedic material. Dilbaggg (talk) 10:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You're getting your policies in a twist. As I've already pointed out to you; "[n]obody has argued that there aren't sources or that it isn't notable". All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Dilbaggg, I do not think these are good arguments for a deletion discussion. You've made your case repeatedly, there is no need to WP:BLUDGEON.LM2000 (talk) 09:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.