Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ABC Family Worldwide

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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ABC Family Worldwide

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article should be deleted because there is no need for ABC Family Worldwide to have a Wikipedia article. It may still legally be in business, but ABCF Worldwide was never listed on Disney-ABC's website, despite the channel itself being part of the site. Add in the constant and unnecessary name changes made to the article, it calls for drastic measures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WakeFan91 (talk • contribs)

Speedy keep, valid article with references. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. "The" Disney-ABC site might not a good criterion as the sites I found list their products and not their company structure. This company is part of the Disney–ABC Television Group. External sources acknowledge its existence, too. As far as the recent "constant and unnecessary name changes" are concerned, it just needs a reliable source to do so. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Well-sourced article on an eminently notable subject. --Finngall ^talk 22:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge pertinent ABCF/Freeform-era info to Disney–ABC Television Group, the rest goes to International Family Entertainment as a historic article This company has been merged with the parent organization for thirteen years. Why we still have this article as a present-state article is beyond me; it's time to address it and split out portions where they belong. Nate • (chatter) 03:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ABCFWW was not "merged" with Disney–ABC thirteen years ago. It still exists as a subsidiary. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But have they done anything of note since being subsidarized? Outside of winding down the Jetix partnership and taking control of SoapNet, the article peters out at that point, which is why I suggest the IFE split-out. Nate • (chatter) 22:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Comment - Well, the "done anything of note since being subsidiaried" (not sure if that's the correct terminology or even a word) argument realistically could be made about any company acquired by another company. But, that doesn't mean the acquired company ceases to exist after being acquired by another company. Even if an acquired company does nothing of notability after being acquired by another company, the acquired company still exists, it still operates. Plus, information about & the history of IFE is already chronicled in this article, as well as the article about ABCFWW's predecesors. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: What is simply a historical subsidiary today actually had a decent, independent history, and also explains why Fox has the MTM library. ViperSnake151 Talk 04:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.