Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyrell Corporation

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The result was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrell Corporation[edit]

Reason Psikxas (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No reason given for deletion. I've left a message on the nominator's talk page. Hairhorn (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a real corporation named "TYRELL CORPORATION LIMITED": [1]. See also some of these hits: [2]. Even if the fictional corporation is more notable, I think it is a bit problematic for the main article to refer to a fictional corporation with the main name "Tyrell Corporation"; I would support a Move to Tyrell Corporation (Blade Runner) or something similar, if we decide to keep this page. Cazort (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are zero references which meet all of the following requirements:
1. Are independent of the company itself
2. Are reliable
3. Which substantially focus on this.
Please read WP:N. Something is only worthy of an article if it can be demonstrated that people outside of Wikipedia, and independent of the subject itself, have written extensively about it in reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psikxas (talk • contribs) 21:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but WHAAAA? This an an entry about a fictional corporation in a film. How do you expect to get sources "independent of the company itself"?? Or any kind of source beyond the film? Hairhorn (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, there are quite a number of sources beyond the film. Put "Tyrell Corporation" into Google Books and discover the field of literary and film criticism. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the lesson, but criticism can add little information about the company, since all information about the company is in the damn film, unless you're looking for something like "meaning" or "significance" of the company in the story, which is another matter entirely. Hairhorn (talk) 05:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - … but which is still "sources beyond the film". Uncle G (talk) 11:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think both of us are waaay off topic. Hairhorn (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        On the contrary, the existences, provenances, and depths of sources is very much on topic for AFD discussions. Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reported by me but was my mistake from the beggining, please withdraw the nomination. Sorry Psikxas (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dont support moving the article, keep it as it is till something new comes up here. We dont know if the "real" corporation Cazort found is notable enough and could be on wikipedia one day. 22:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Even if the "real" corporation is not notable, I think it is problematic--people likely will type its name into the search box. If they arrive at a minimally-notable page on a fictional corporation where the title of the page doesn't make clear that it's fictional and/or associated with bladerunner...I dunno? I don't like that result. Cazort (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AfD is not listed correctly on the affected page. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's because it's been withdrawn. Can someone close this, please? Hairhorn (talk) 05:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even though this article does not provide any evidence that its subject matter is notable. There are a few essays out there such as the one written by Rodrigo Garcia Alvarado which suggest a good article could be written. This is probably one for the Article Rescue Squadron. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This makes no sense. The nominator withdrew his nomination for AfD. Why has this not been closed? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.