Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anheuser-Busch InBev


 * 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   no consensus to delete, default to keep.  Sandstein  17:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Anheuser-Busch InBev

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * Renamed Proposed merger of Anheuser-Busch and InBev, per concerns raised in discussion below.S. Dean Jameson 19:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Anheuser-Busch InBev does not exist, as the merger is not yet approved. Thus, this is an unnecessary crystal ball article that simply repeats content from existing articles. The article should be recreated later if/when the new company actually exists. Superm401 - Talk 15:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nuetral At first I thought this was an easy case of WP:CRYSTAL, but several sources say otherwise. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 16:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Which reliable source explicitly says the deal is complete, and not pending any approval? Now, granted, some sources aren't mentioning approval either way, but they're just being careless. Superm401 - Talk 16:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Even if the merger would fail, the attempt and the proposal have gained notability because of the importance for the global beer market and far stage of the negotiations. The importance is well known because it would establish the biggest brewer group ever, usurping 25% of the global beer market and becoming the fifth biggest consumer group in the world. A failure of this proposal would have equally important ramifications for the global beer market. 81.240.170.97 (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete This deal is far from complete, the fact that analysts consider it very likely to happen is not relevant. This article is written as if the takeover has already taken place (mentioning dates and all), which is not the case. At this point, Anheuser-Busch InBev simply doesn't exist yet. 217.149.210.16 (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. That subject will be the name of the merged company, but it's not a done deal yet.  From this article, "The deal is subject to approval by shareholders of both Anheuser-Busch and InBev, and it must pass muster with U.S. and other regulators."  At best, the article needs to be rewritten to reflect that.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  20:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article should be rewritten to mirror the fact that it is a proposal. BUT: a significant proposal can have notability, even if it never comes to completion. The media attention to this proposal, the statements of significant politicians (eg Obama), the impact this proposal (or its failure) would have, the fact that it's the biggest cash take-over attempt ever, the fact that it "could" create a completely different beer market, etc. MAKE it notable. Btw there are a lot of proposals (for peace treaties, for the European Defence Community, etc.) that never came into existence. Sijo Ripa (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Violation of Crystal Ball policy. Do we even know that if the deal goes through, that the name of the company will be Anheuser-Busch InBev? --Tocino 22:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * yes we do it is in the new york times article. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I am quite split on this issue. While the deal has not gone through yet it is too early to put this up. Although it can be added later. While the deal has been announced, and albeit likely to go through (SAB Miller did, despite it being a smaller acquisition), it has to pass American and EU regulatory approvals (which can add another para. worth to the article), it is not ready for an article just yet. And if the deal fall through it can always, and probably will, be added to the InBev and/or Anheuser pages. Lihaas (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep deal is pretty much sealed and this is the announced name of the new company. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Grey Wanderer. The deal is practically done anyway. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 23:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep until resolution of deal is complete. Then we'll go on from there. -- Meldshal42  (talk to me)  00:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Front page material, clearly a big deal. General Epitaph (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per InBev's press release stating "Company to be Named Anheuser-Busch InBev" —  C M B J   02:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What a terrible name. --Tocino 03:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep As of this particular moment, the merger has been agreed upon - the company's going to be created. CCG (T-C) 04:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The name has been decided (it is in the joint press release) and the companies themselves don't even mention regulatory approval - probably because there is very little geographical overlap. User:Luzdanoite


 * Keep The points of those arguing for deletion appear to have become moot. Maxamegalon2000 05:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Uh, how so, given that absolutely nothing has changed since the nomination? Superm401 - Talk 19:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep This merger and the corporate name when merged have been announced by both parties, which is notable in itself. Add that both AB's and InBev's articles will almost certainly forward to this new page shortly, and deleting it at this point seems a bit silly. Deal's also on front page, so... - Kallahan (talk) 05:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This user has used his admin tools to revert a completely appropriate and peace-making move to a more appropriate title. There was no attempt to communicate with me regarding reverting my move with his tools, and the only response from anyone (other than the abuse of admin tools to revert the move) was a user commenting in support of the move. S. Dean Jameson 22:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What in the world are you talking about? What admin tools? -- Kallahan (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I distribute Five newspaper publications every day, And this was front page material on three of them, Not including the St. Louis Post Dispatch. And I bet this will be in the upcoming saturday-only Barrons!  This is a clean article, And as long as it is updated as the news rolls in on this merger, This article should be kept.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.53.164.156 (talk) 12:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Merger is all but done, and this is a completely notable attempt at a merger if nothing else. 143.165.8.50 (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above. Even if it should fail -- unlikely -- then the attempt would be notable on its own. — Nightstallion 15:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Even if, as expected the merger goes thru the way to handle the proposed company is to merge the existing Anheuser-Busch & InBev articles into the new Anheuser-Busch InBev and replace the old pages with redirects, not add a additional page and keeping the other two. Jon (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Most proposed mergers have their own article. Why should this be any different? --Allemannster (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, as well as the comments of Jon above. The deal is a proposed one, as of this very moment, with approval from various entities still required for it to become official.  --74.95.135.46 (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The above IP vote was mine. I thought I was logged in, but actually wasn't.  My apologies..  --Winger84 (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. For those who say "the company's going to be created" and "That subject will be the name of the merged company", "the companies themselves don't even mention regulatory approval ", etc. you're simply wrong.  There is no deal and no company without approval by regulators and shareholders.  The companies in fact do state themselves that approval is required..  Nor is the fact that it's "Front page material" relevant; this isn't a newspaper.  Superm401 - Talk 19:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have WP:BOLDly redirected this to the A-B article. It's a clear case of crystal-balling, and the article history remains--pending the result of this AfD of course--for if and when the deal actually goes through. Remember, my action does not affect this AfD, it simply removes a blatant example of crystal-balling, at least for now. S. Dean Jameson 02:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Undeleted. I count 14 keep and 8 delete, which is a pretty clear decision if ever I've seen one. And I'd suggest that the other pages may not need to be redirected at all; see Latrobe Brewing Company, currently a part of AB (and formerly a part of InBev, but now... you catch my drift.) -- Kallahan (talk) 06:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You "undeleted" nothing. As it was simply redirected (and appropriately so), there was nothing to "undelete." Also, you should know that AfDs are not a vote count, in any way. They are a discussion. Citing "14 to 8" is completely, utterly irrelevant. I read the discussion thoroughly. And this is pretty clear-cut crystal-balling. There may be some point in the future when a viable article may be needed with this title, which is why I redirected it, saving the history. Right now, this "company" doesn't even exist, though, and neither should the article. S. Dean Jameson 06:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dean, as long as the article deals with a "proposed" company, it is not crystal-balling, because it IS a proposed company. It would be crystal-balling if the article would state that the company will (in all possible circumstances) be created. Many examples have been set across Wikipedia about proposals for treaties, countries, movies, flags, etc. that were never realized. These articles are valid as long as the subject in itself is notable. Sijo Ripa (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As such, I've moved the article to a more appropriately-titled name, for now. It's easy enough to move it back, should the merger be approved. S. Dean Jameson 19:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, with the changed title. If it's moved back, then I think we should delete it, per the crystal-balling title. S. Dean Jameson 19:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support for move. I agree with Dean's move, as it better reflects the ongoing and uncertain nature of the proposed merger. Sijo Ripa (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I invite the community to take Jameson's move for what it is and assess if he's being unduly uncooperative and uncollaborative, given the responses on the board. A tad vindictive given the supermajority opposed to his position; I invite everyone to observe his comments on my Talk wall and my response on his. Unimpressed and will more than gladly take his/her bullying to the higher ups if need be. -- Kallahan (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Who is bullying here? I made a wholly benign page move, that was supported by an editor who had previously been at odds with my position. You reverted it, simply because I was the one who made it, and you were angry about my initial idea to redirect the article. You're being utterly unhelpful here, and I'm still struggling to understand how you could have possibly thought that moving it back without discussion would be helpful at all. S. Dean Jameson 03:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've moved it back. I just realized that Kallahan is not an administrator, and did not need to use tools to move it back. I implore both Kallahan and anyone considering moving it back to closely examine the article as it reads with its new title. With its new title, it's a clear keep. With the title that basically predicts the merger will receive approval, it's not a clear keep. S. Dean Jameson 03:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep: This article will be notable regardless of outcome. The deal has already been approved; only regulatory action could block it. Provided the deal goes through, it's a blatantly notable corporation (the world's largest beer producer). If it is blocked, it's a notable case study in regulatory intervention between two very large companies (could use a name change to 2008 Proposed Merger between Anheuser-Busch and InBev if that were the case). Either way, the article is a painfully obvious keep. 86.204.121.194 (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * DELETE: This article can be revived if regulatory approval occurs. It is not necessary at this time. KansasCity (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment -- In what case is the proposed merger not notable? If it is approved, it is notable. If it is not approved, it is still notable as a proposed merger into the world's largest beer company and as a regulatory precedent. Either way, the proposition itself (as the title of the article now stands) is notable. 81.51.232.219 (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2008 (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.