Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bluth Company


 * 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 Arrested Development (TV series) per WP:NSUPER. Consider this a no consensus close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Bluth Company

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There are no sources mentioned in the article and it appears to be entirely made up of original research (with some plot elements). The show it is associated with (Arrested Development) is certainly notable but I was unable to find any significant coverage of just the Bluth Company to justify keeping this article. SQGibbon (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 *  Keep  I have added some references Wikishagnik (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell you added one external link that is a review about the third season and not specifically about the Bluth Company. The second reference is to TV.com which is not a reliable source. And the third link to the Palm Beach Post article had nothing to do with the Bluth Company in this article. Even if these were good references nothing was done to connect them to any of the content in the article. SQGibbon (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I've looked at the references Wikishagnik added, and I concur with SQGibbon as to their pertinence and reliability.  As such, the article cites no reliable sources for verifiability and fails the notability guideline.  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  20:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep With 1, 2, 3 from google Books and 1, 2, 3, 4 Google News Archive, there are plenty of independent RS mentions. The San Jose Mercury News reference, added and inappropriately removed above, is also a good mention.  Not all of them are non-trivial, but they all demonstrate that the fictional element, the company, is discussed as a separate entity. Jclemens (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the Bluth Company is a central part of the premise of Arrested Development there are going to be thousands upon thousands of mentions of it throughout the Internet. The trick is finding significant discussions just about the company from reliable sources.  The first link you provided (the book Arrested Development and Philosophy: They've Made a Huge Mistake) is a book of pop-cultural essays about Arrested Development so of course the Bluth Company is going to be mentioned throughout.  Looking at the glossary it looks like one chapter might be about the Bluth Company ("Family First: How Not to Run a Business") but I don't have that book so it's not clear.  It's also not clear that anything mentioned in that chapter has anything to do with what's in the current article. The next two books appear to be trivial mentions of the Bluth Company (again mentioned as part of the premise for Arrested Development) and as such do not go to establishing notability. The A.V. Club link is to a review that mentions the company but does not go into any detail about it in a way that's useful for an article.  The USA Today article is similar. The Goliath link is not freely-available (but free to read if you join the site) so I can't read it but the abstract does not make it clear to me that the article is an in-depth discussion about the Bluth Company qua Bluth Company.  The most interesting link is the one from Forbes.  However it is a tongue-in-cheek advice column for how to run a business and otherwise merely relates some specific plot points from the show.  In the end I do not think any of this establishes notability with certainty (again, without access to some of this material it's difficult to say). But I guess some of the difficulty is trying to establish what the article should be about if preserved.  Right now it's the overall evolution of the company in-universe.  Perhaps with enough work we could find enough reviews that would allow someone to piece together the history of the company that way and produce a well-sourced article.  Maybe?  Or if the article should be more of a critical assessment from outside the universe of Arrested Development then the article from Forbes might be useful (even though it's more of a humor piece than anything) and possibly the sources mentioned above that I don't have access to.  Maybe those sources could be converted into a good article but until someone does this that's all hypothetical which I don't think goes to establishing notability and does not help with the current problems of original research.  If the article was just reduced to the basic facts (the company owned by the family portrayed in Arrested Development) then we wouldn't need the article and could just add that line to the AD article. SQGibbon (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Arrested Development (TV series), as I can't see how this could be developed in a proper article with significant real-world info etc. If this fictional element was really so relevant for the series, the company's development might as well be described in Arrested Development (TV series). Nothing directly to merge. – sgeureka t•c 10:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)




 * Redirect to Arrested Development (TV series). It's a fork. And one more thing — I am definitely gonna make a T-shirt using that logo. Carrite (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - There is a legitimate need for this as a sub-page of an already very long main page on Arrested Development. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia and a pop-culture compendium and we should revel in the excellence of the latter. Carrite (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Arrested Development (TV series). This serves as a fine redirect, and the salient content is actually already in the article on the show, in the various season plot sections. Frankly, the Bluth Company article just regurgitates plot points that focus on the Company. I am a huge fan of the show, but there is minimal evidence of independent notability for the Bluth Company, certainly nothing that suggests it needs its own article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  18:39, 14 February 2012 (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.