Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merger of Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines

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 Alaska Airlines. I'm closing this as Redirect. Content is preserved in case this "proposed" merger occurs and an article is warranted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I question the notability of this article. The limited information on this page could be covered on the Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines pages. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and Aviation. RickyCourtney (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alaska Airlines: where a section about the merger already covers almost as much as this article does. Owen× ☎ 23:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: To my knowledge, the question when it comes to notability is not whether or not the subtopic could theoretically be covered in another article. States of the United States could theoretically covered in one article. It's whether the subtopic has enough coverage to establish notability under the notability guideline. This topic unquestionably does: there is substantial international coverage of the merger announcement, more coverage when Hawaiian shareholders approved it (something I have not added yet), prior speculation of consolidation before the announcement, and there will be continued coverage regardless of the outcome. We have many articles about mergers between major companies because if we incorporated all of the info into the primary company's article, it would take over the article: examples include Sprint and T-Mobile, Asiana and Korean Air, Microsoft and Activision, U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel, etc. This is a common enough genre of article that we have an infobox template specifically for this. Avgeekamfot (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: I understand that the article as it currently stands could be merged but this is just a start. In terms of pure notability source assessment, this article already incorporates significant coverage from the San Francisco Chronicle, Christian Science Monitor, Reuters, and AP. But there's additional significant coverage from essentially every major media outlet in the U.S. and global aviation media. Happy to pull up more if anyone is unconvinced of this and is unable to find these examples easily. Avgeekamfot (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'm not saying the merger isn't notable, I'm arguing that it is not notable enough to sustain a standalone article. Even with eight sources cited, there's little more information on this page than there already exists on the Alaska Airlines page. A lot of the sources are simply rehashing the AP or Reuters wire copy, localized to their market, or parroting the Alaska/Hawaiian press release. My biggest concern is that this page will end up like a lot of those merger pages, withering away with little attention from editors who will inevitably focus on the main Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines pages. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the proposed merger of Korean Air and Asiana Airlines article has withered away as editors focus on the main airline pages and think the same will happen here as I (and other aviation-interested editors) build this article out. On the contrary, merging the topic into the main article will result in the section becoming disproportionately large. Avgeekamfot (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hawaii, Alaska, Japan, and Korea. 00:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avgeekamfot (talk • contribs)
Comment: to be clear, this is an article about a proposed merger that hasn't happened, and potentially may never happen. I don't know if WP:CRYSTAL or WP:TOOSOON apply, but I don't see the routine churnalism coverage as establishing notability per WP:FUTUREEVENT. Owen× ☎ 00:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll come back to this later but it goes far beyond "routine churnalism". There was speculation from industry insiders about consolidation before, there's reporting on the original announcement, coverage of continued movements in the merger process, industry analysis on the effect on competition, anti-trust process, and more. Putting this all in the Alaska Airlines article would take over the article. We don't need a crystal ball to find enough coverage to prove notability of this. Avgeekamfot (talk) 05:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate: the original announcement was covered by pretty much every including New York Times, don't think I need to list these out but there's more in the article. There's multiple examples prior speculation/analysis of a merger (need to research this bit more but I've seen others); lots of analysis on consumer impact including from San Francisco Chronicle, Wall Street Journal, ABC, Travel Weekly, Conde Nast, View From The Wing, Star Advertiser; speculation on anti-trust implications from CNBC, Bloomberg Law, Skift, AP, NPR; analysis on how the deal developed from Seattle Times, Bloomberg/Japan Times; continued coverage on developments from KHON; and of course financial coverage on stocks, etc. from Reuters, Forbes, Axios, Barron's. This just scratches the surface. It's not WP:TOOSOON or WP:CRYSTAL. It's also an ongoing event that's not a WP:FUTUREEVENT. It's an ongoing merger that meets the notability threshold with more than enough coverage to merit its own article rather than taking over either airline's article. Avgeekamfot (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alaska Airlines Does not need separate article; few other major mergers have standalone articles, even with news coverage like the above. Propose a split if/when there's actually sufficient content to warrant one. Reywas92^Talk 16:07, 6 March 2024 (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.