Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinoco

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 no consensus. WjBscribe 02:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dinoco

Dinoco (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is a small fictional company that is used in Pixar movies. It has only played a small role in one movie (and a few cameos in others), and asserts no notability outside of it. Even if it were notable, it's still just a very minor part of that one movie. I had proposed merging it, but it seems best to delete it at this point. Nemu 17:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Would it be applicable to list Radiator Springs along with this as well, or would that require another discussion? It's another concept bound to the movie. Nemu 17:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep presence in two films is enough for me to say keep as a short article, add in the Dynaco disambig, it'll be better served to keep. I'd be fine with a merge if the company wasn't in two films, or was less notable in Cars, but all of these factors convince me it's better to just keep it rather than delete or merge. FrozenPurpleCube 17:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable fictional company. That it played a small role in one film and was used as some sort of in-joke in another does not establish notability. Otto4711 17:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom & Otto4711 & WP:FICT. --Dhartung | Talk 18:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Not even close to meeting notability requirements. RMS Oceanic 21:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I know I'll be overwhelmingly out!voted here, but I think this actually could be useful for people who've, say, seen it in the film and are wondering whether it's a real company. We do have Acme Corporation after all. It's not as if "Cars" was a straight-to-video underground film. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 02:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The Acme Corporation is used in a LOT more films and cartoons, they're not quite on the same level to make it a fair comparison. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Where else would you find information on the appearances and business practices of the company? (I also agree with what IridesCenti said)-dogman15 04:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's used in more than just one film. Merging to a single one will cause problems for mention in the other film and removing it entirely would mean removal of useful information. If keeping isn't going to happen, I support a merge to cars as it appears to have the biggest role/mention in that film. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. As Mgm said, it's in more than one film, making merging an issue. I think it's likely to continue appearing in Pixar films as well, and if so, the article will grow (and become even less specific to Cars) over time. Pinball22 15:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This is a minor cameo in other movies. It isn't even talked about. If it's really that large of an issue, a section like "recurring themes" could be created in the Pixar article it can easily be placed in Pixar#Cameo appearances. Even then, this still fails notability, so I don't see how more than one movie is an issue. Nemu 15:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails notability. A single sentence on the Cars page would more than suffice. Sephiroth BCR 05:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the article is only plot summary, with no real world context. May not even be worth mentioning on the movie pages. Jay32183 00:55, 18 April 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.