I find the conversation of "Is X art?" to be pretty boring, as "Art" is kind of a meaningless and inherently subjective descriptor. It's an exercise in vibes and vibes alone. It's an argument rather off-topic for the thread and too abstract to ever resolve in a satisfying way.
Jumping in the muck though; I think any description of art that precludes lower media like Twitch streams, reality TV, street or modern art, or anything like that to be mixing up the word "art" to mean "good art", or more likely, "art that I enjoy / don't look down upon". These distinctions are entirely arbitrary, and entirely differ based on each person, their society or time period, and a million other unknowable factors.
I think everything people make can be considered art, whether it is meant as such or not. Is is interesting art? Boring art? Unremarkable? Meaningless? Actively harmful? It's still art, because someone made it.
The only things I don't necessarily consider art is that which isn't made by people. A forest wouldn't be considered art until someone writes about it, or paints it, photographs it, or anything like it. AI art fits in here too.
Even then though, would a Dam built by beavers be art? A bird's nest? I refuse to think any further than this equally abitrary point. I will instead simply pick up the bigger rock, bonk you on the head with it, and then continue about my day.
If you don't like WWE, that's totally chill haha. Everyone has their own personal calculus. In mine, I just don't agree that "art I don't enjoy" means it is not art.