Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proposed Warner Bros. Discovery-Paramount merger


 * 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Consensus is for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposed Warner Bros. Discovery-Paramount merger

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

Far too soon to warrant its own article. Title is a misnomer: neither company has officially proposed a merger, and now Zaslav is walking back or downplaying the gravitas of his talks with Paramount (source). All the information in this stub already comfortably resides in both the Paramount Global and WBD articles. Should be redirected, drafitied, or deleted. DigitalIceAge (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 24.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 00:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Business, Companies,  and New York.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  02:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  02:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I've also removed the details of this from WBD and Paramount Global because as it is right now, this is all unconfirmed business gossip and will remain so until the new year. We're not the Yahoo Finance boards or Reddit, and only confirmed information about any deal should be listed here, not to mention that any deal certainly won't be a clean merger due to anti-trust concerns, adding other companies to the mix.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete, I agree that it is far too soon for its article, it's just proposed and hasn't happened yet LuxembourgBoy42 (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete At this point, it's merely a possibility. There isn't nearly enough traction to justify an article. Rickraptor707 (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:TOOSOON right now, arguably is also a failure of WP:NOTNEWS. User:Let'srun 20:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep:  Although it is merely speculation, it isn't uncommon for events that didn't occur to have their own page, an example being the page for Bojinka plot. It helps let people understand what has potential to occur. User:HaskeyM 20:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope We're not going to compare the plan for a terrorist attack to an unconfirmed media merger. Are you absolutely kidding me?!  Nate  • ( chatter ) 20:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm with Nate on this one, you cannot be comparing a proposed merger to a planned terrorist attack. The terrorist attack deserves a page since it is notable, a planned merger than isn't official is not notable. For example, the planned Six Flags-Cedar Fair merger does not have a page LuxembourgBoy42 (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete: If the merger doesn't happen at all, then there'll be no point in having this article at all. 2600:6C52:4C40:E77:C581:AD0A:548A:A2BA (talk) 23:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:TOOSOON right now its all just WP:SPECULATION. If this merger actually happens then it might pass GNG but right now its just rumours. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 09:30, 27 December 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.