441:
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
368:
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
426:, 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.
442:
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.
173:
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.
95:
228:
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.
64:
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. —
149:
369:
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.
356:
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?
90:
56:, so this should not exist as a separate article currently. However, it is probably a legitimate search term, so a redirect is worthwhile.
297:. 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.
17:
122:
117:
126:
306:
Comment: How many fictional companies are notable? Sure, many of them have articles, but most of them probably shouldn't. —
275:
202:
109:
477:
36:
476:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
52:. Arguments to delete are correct in that no one has presented evidence of non-trivial coverage in independent
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
417:
412:
340:
190:
293:
Comment. I'm not sure why we think it is as important as others, but that isn't the point anyway. See
462:
446:
430:
392:
373:
360:
345:
317:
301:
286:
259:
232:
223:
178:
160:
74:
459:
312:
254:
184:
333:
443:
423:
370:
268:
229:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
405:
b) it is the most comprehensive, most encompassing viral marketing web site ever put on line
170:
198:
113:
294:
401:
216:
53:
307:
249:
61:
70:
357:
143:
327:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
427:
194:
157:
105:
80:
298:
220:
175:
381:
Let me restate my position. I think that the article is interesting in the
65:
387:
245:
49:
391:
context. But what makes it really notable is not a matter of Pixar
382:
248:; maybe if it becomes notable on its own it can get an article. —
185:"Introducing the world’s largest, most extensive viral site ever"
470:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
407:
c) it is not viral marketing by an obscure group of filmmakers
219:
and basically a trivial mention as it is only a few words.
267:
It is just as important as any other fictional company.
156:
I would like to know if this article should be deleted
139:
135:
131:
60:
the marketing effort and/or fictional company becomes
332:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
96:Articles for deletion/Buy n Large (2nd nomination)
422:Let me add that I don't welcome the statement by
215:This is a mention in a blog. I think this not a
480:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
88:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
87:
24:
91:Articles for deletion/Buy n Large
183:No non trivial ? what about MTV
458:Fails notability guidelines. --
205:) 09:58, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
75:08:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
1:
463:16:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
447:13:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
431:08:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
374:23:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
361:17:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
346:16:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
318:01:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
233:23:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
400:a) it is a textbook case of
416:, it is made by the mighty
302:14:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
287:23:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
260:23:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
224:14:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
179:09:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
161:05:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
497:
473:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
86:AfDs for this article:
418:Walt Disney Company
413:Blair Witch Project
348:
284:
206:
193:comment added by
488:
475:
343:
338:
331:
329:
283:
276:
273:
272:
188:
147:
129:
54:reliable sources
50:WALL-E#Marketing
34:
496:
495:
491:
490:
489:
487:
486:
485:
484:
478:deletion review
471:
402:viral marketing
341:
334:
325:
277:
270:
269:
120:
104:
101:
84:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
494:
492:
483:
482:
466:
465:
452:
451:
450:
449:
421:
406:
404:
398:
397:
396:
376:
363:
350:
349:
330:
322:
321:
320:
304:
290:
289:
262:
238:
237:
236:
235:
226:
210:
209:
208:
207:
169:fails primary
154:
153:
100:
99:
98:
93:
85:
83:
78:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
493:
481:
479:
474:
468:
467:
464:
461:
457:
454:
453:
448:
445:
440:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
429:
425:
419:
415:
414:
410:
403:
395:. It is that:
394:
390:
389:
384:
380:
377:
375:
372:
367:
364:
362:
359:
355:
352:
351:
347:
344:
339:
337:
328:
324:
323:
319:
315:
314:
309:
305:
303:
300:
296:
292:
291:
288:
285:
282:
281:
274:
266:
263:
261:
257:
256:
251:
247:
243:
240:
239:
234:
231:
227:
225:
222:
218:
214:
213:
212:
211:
204:
200:
196:
192:
186:
182:
181:
180:
177:
172:
168:
165:
164:
163:
162:
159:
151:
145:
141:
137:
133:
128:
124:
119:
115:
111:
107:
103:
102:
97:
94:
92:
89:
82:
79:
77:
76:
73:
72:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
472:
469:
455:
444:Thomjakobsen
438:
424:Thomjakobsen
411:
408:
399:
386:
378:
371:Thomjakobsen
365:
353:
335:
326:
311:
279:
278:
264:
253:
241:
230:Thomjakobsen
166:
155:
69:
57:
45:
43:
31:
28:
189:—Preceding
106:Buy n Large
81:Buy n Large
171:notability
308:tregoweth
250:tregoweth
460:Strothra
393:fancruft
336:Krakatoa
203:contribs
191:unsigned
150:View log
46:redirect
439:Comment
358:MarkBul
271:A•N•N•A
123:protect
118:history
62:notable
456:Delete
428:Hektor
388:WALL-E
366:Delete
354:Delete
295:WP:WAX
246:WALL-E
195:Hektor
167:Delete
158:Hektor
127:delete
383:Pixar
342:Katie
299:Obina
244:with
242:Merge
221:Obina
217:WP:RS
176:Obina
144:views
136:watch
132:links
16:<
409:Ă la
385:and
379:Keep
313:talk
265:Keep
255:talk
199:talk
140:logs
114:talk
110:edit
71:Talk
280:hi!
187:.
148:– (
66:TKD
48:to
420:.
316:)
258:)
201:•
142:|
138:|
134:|
130:|
125:|
121:|
116:|
112:|
68:::
58:If
310:(
252:(
197:(
152:)
146:)
108:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.