Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buy n Large

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 WALL-E#Marketing. Arguments to delete are correct in that no one has presented evidence of non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources, so this should not exist as a separate article currently. However, it is probably a legitimate search term, so a redirect is worthwhile. If the marketing effort and/or fictional company becomes notable in and of themselves later, then this article could be re-created, but it's evidently too soon to be spinning off articles related to this individual component of a future film. — TKD::Talk 08:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buy n Large

Buy n Large (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I would like to know if this article should be deleted Hektor 05:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails primary notability criteria. There are no non trivial independent sources discussing this imaginary company. Perhaps once the film comes out, this may become notable (I won't hold my breath), but anyway today it is not. Obina 09:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • No non trivial ? what about MTV "Introducing the world’s largest, most extensive viral site ever". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hektor (talk • contribs) 09:58, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

This is a mention in a blog. I think this not a WP:RS and basically a trivial mention as it is only a few words.Obina 14:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

One sentence and a link is about as trivial as it gets, and it's not independent of the film's marketing. I'd be surprised if that wasn't an exact lift from the site's press release. Thomjakobsen 23:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with WALL-E; maybe if it becomes notable on its own it can get an article. —tregoweth (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It is just as important as any other fictional company. A•N•N•A hi! 23:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I'm not sure why we think it is as important as others, but that isn't the point anyway. See WP:WAX. The question is this a notable fictional company? So far the only sources are a few words in an MTV blog, and the web site itself.Obina 14:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: How many fictional companies are notable? Sure, many of them have articles, but most of them probably shouldn't. —tregoweth (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 16:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete It seems to be here simply as spam. So far I dont' find any coverage. Even if coverage shows up, is this page for the fictional company or the marketing effort? MarkBul 17:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The film will undoubtably be notable, but it hasn't been released. Any references to the company are entirely dependent on press releases, so there cannot be any independent, reliable secondary sources. I see the article as spam, part of the marketing campaign, and so should be deleted. If it turns out to be notable, then an article can be created after the expensive PR drive has died down and when its notability can be established in a more independent fashion. Thomjakobsen 23:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Let me restate my position. I think that the article is interesting in the Pixar and WALL-E context. But what makes it really notable is not a matter of Pixar fancruft. It is that:
  

a) it is a textbook case of viral marketing
b) it is the most comprehensive, most encompassing viral marketing web site ever put on line
c) it is not viral marketing by an obscure group of filmmakers à la Blair Witch Project, it is made by the mighty Walt Disney Company.
Let me add that I don't welcome the statement by Thomjakobsen, which is close to a personal attack, being the creator of the article ("I see the article as spam, part of the marketing campaign"). I am a French engineering student in Toulouse, France, and am in no way affiliated with the Walt Disney Company or Pixar. Please assume good faith. Hektor 08:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It's not a personal attack. I've no doubt you're unconnected to those companies. What I meant by that sentence: the article is completely dependent on the film's marketing material. In effect, it's like when magazines simply repeat the content of press releases. If the only source for an article is the pre-release marketing campaign of a film we have no reliable, independent sources for, it's essentially equivalent to part of that marketing campaign. It's passing on their material uncritically, and we have no opportunity for independent evaluation of that material. Thomjakobsen 13:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails notability guidelines. --Strothra 16:22, 9 September 2007 (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.