Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warner Bros. Recreational Enterprises


 * 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 redirect to Warner Bros. As there seems a rough consensus both that there is not independent notability satisfied and also that the content is generally not reliable enough for a formal merge. The content remains available for specific adaptations by editors desiring to do so. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Warner Bros. Recreational Enterprises

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I initially boldy redirected this as being a subsidiary of WB is probably worth mentioning, it is not, on it's own, subject to the necessary coverage to sustain an article so I am proposing to delete and then redirect to the main article, Warner Bros. as most of what can be said could be added in 2-3 sentences, whereas this article is largely based on non-rs and synth. CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  20:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Warner Bros. I'm not seeing any valid sources that indicate this entity currently exists. Most of the citations appear to be out-of-date or only casually mention the term "Warner Bros. Recreational Enterprises," without any supporting verbiage. Many of the citations rehash the exact same content and therefore appear to have been copied from the same source. Warner Bros. Recreational Enterprises may have existed at one time, but I am not convinced that it still exists today. Given the current sources, there is not enough information to support a separate article.— JlACEer ( talk ) 04:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to Warner Bros. I agree that this is not independently notable, but at present Warner Bros. doesn't mention Warner Bros. Recreational Enterprises, Bruce Berman or even Warner Bros. Movie World yet, so this should not be deleted or redirected without moving that information over first. › Mortee  talk 20:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue with merging is that as it currently stands, the content is largely unsourced, synth or unreliable. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  15:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Warner Bros. as a plausibe search term. Not independently notable, and the present content would not improve the target page, so I would oppose a "merge" in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Remain I'm trying to pull as much information as possible. I've contacted Nicholas Winslow the former President and interviewed him about his time prior to leaving in 1999. I'm going to speak with Stephen Ross who left his position as Executive Vice President to Recreation Enterprises in 2017. I'm not certain in what way the company still exists but I feel there is enough to merit it's own page.Chrisisreed (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Warner Bros. as this company is not independently notable.  HighKing++ 13:39, 14 August 2018 (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.