Talk:Buy n Large

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on August 29, 2007. The result of the discussion was redirect to WALL-E#Marketing.

[edit] Redirecting to WALL-E

This is a fictional company in a film that has not even been released yet, and the only information available is from the fake site Disney put up. Unless Buy n Large becomes notable enough on its own to merit an encyclopedia article, this should stay as a redirect to WALL-E. —tregoweth (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

  • This is your opinion, maybe we can discuss ? For instance, this is undoubtedly the largest and most comprehensive fake web site about a fictional company that Disney has put up. And furthermore there is a whole lot of interesting easter eggs. The film is a major release, and obviously Disney and Pixar are putting great effort in creating a comprehensive Universe. Please also look at the List of fictional companies, there are a lot of them where much less effort has been put by their 'creators'. Hektor 22:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Such information should go in WALL-E, if anywhere; a marketing campaign does not necessarily justify its own article. —tregoweth (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Well as far as I can see, when the redirect was created the information was not transferred to the main article. This was just amounting to a deletion. Hektor 06:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Merger

Hi. I performed the suggested merger of the Buy n Large article with the WALL-E article. However, all merged content was subsequently deleted from the WALL-E article stating that it was a violation of WP:WAF. So unless further notability for the corporation can be established, I don't think writing about the Buy n Large corporation is possible. :) aJCfreak yAk 18:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've re-redirected this article to WALL-E. Buy n Large is not a well-known fictional company; it is only known to those who have been following the advance publicity for WALL-E. If it becomes well-known/notable later on, fine. But having an article about a fictional company featured in an unreleased movie is ridiculous. —tregoweth (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  • There are articles about obscure corporations like ARCAM Corporation from Japanese things most people have never heard of so your argument is not very convincing. I would tend to revert and propose an Afd. Seems to me it would be better to clear the point. ... Hektor 05:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] deletion criteria

You may want to review the deletion criteria. The problem with this article in my view, is that there are not multiple non trivial reliable sources. See WP:NOTE and WP:RS. The MTV blog is not reliable and in fact it is a trivial entry - little more than a listing. Also other fictional companies don't help - the fact that they are on Wikipedia doesn't mean this one should be too. See WP:WAX and WP:ATA.Obina 14:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)