Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Can Get Them for You Wholesale (film)


 * 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   delete.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 05:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

We Can Get Them for You Wholesale (film)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

There just aren't enough sources to write an article on this film. We can't evaluate it through reviews, we can't provide context, all we can have is the limited information which is here. If you've seen the film, you know more than we do. If you haven't see the film, we can't tell you anything about it which doesn't amount to advertising. Hiding T 19:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Hiding T 19:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with and redirect to We Can Get Them for You Wholesale, the source material of which this appears to be a non-notable adaptation. --Dhartung | Talk 21:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The info was added to that article but consensus was it was extraneous. It was then that a separate article was created.  Do we include information on all adaptations of works in an article on that work? Hiding T 21:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, thanks for (not) mentioning that previous discussion (which, such as it is, appears to be no more than two comments by the same unregistered editor). If consensus is against a merge, that's fine by me, but it was a reasonable thing to suggest. --Dhartung | Talk 22:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies for forgetting to mention that in the nom. I hope you accept that it simply slipped my mind. Yes, there was one anon, but I took silence of other editor's self included, to indicate assent for the removal.  I may be wrong in that assumption, granted. You test consensus best through asserting it. Hiding T 13:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This appears to have been made by an amateur film company and brings up no results on google other than this Wikipedia page. (Note that there are results on the short story that the film is based on.)  Thingg &#8853; &#8855;  21:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I was struggling to find an IMDb entry for this when I tided it up, and based on comments above it doesn't seem to be notable. Or redirect, as also mentioned above. Lugnuts (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of stand-alone notability. Wouldn't be opposed to a brief mention at the short story's Wikipedia article, though. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 23:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable minor project which hasn't received significant coverage. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 16:47, 3 May 2008 (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.