Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pixar Theory

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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 merge to The Pixar Universe. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Pixar Theory

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A fan theory based on one article written last month. I have trouble even calling it a theory, since that would suggest more widespread discussion and adjoining writing on the subject. Rather, this is basically a Wikipedia page for a single article on a pop-culture website. Whether or not the article went "viral" doesn't seem important, as it is this page is essentially just an unsourced (links from other websites directing to the article aren't sources) advertisement for one article. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 01:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That may be so in your eyes, but this article brings up a good point which brings up a good point. Furthermore, it has coverage on multiple websites, which denotes widespread coverage, and some of it could be written out more in the article, as evidenced by the aforementioned article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this article recieved some coverage here: 1 2 3 and notability isn't temporary. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 03:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG and can't find any reasonably strong failures of WP:NOT. Ansh6 6 6 03:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Or merge to "The Pixar Universe" per below. Ansh6 6 6 02:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the whole thing is really fan fiction. If WP had an article on it that article would be a part of the game, nothing else. BayShrimp (talk) 06:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge. Asserted notability seems to come primarily from blogs. I agree with BayShrimp. It strikes me as fan fiction that went viral. It might have enough notability to mention in the Pixar article, but I don't see how a standalone article could be written from what's available. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC) I think there are enough sources to support a merge. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Seems to be a recognized meme: [1]. Do we have any guideline for Wikipedia:Notability (Internet memes)? I think we should have at leas an essay on past and current practices for this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of an SNG or an essay, we properly fall back to WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per topic of "The Pixar Theory" meeting WP:GNG... like it or not. Add IO9 [2] to the NON-blog sources offered above. Article and project will benefit from further expansion, over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)(I struck this. My new opinion follows immediately below this one.) Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}[reply]
REDIRECT to the older sourcable topic of The Pixar Universe which seems to be the basic concept behind the article on the theory of connectivity between the various Pixar films. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable fan fiction. Koala15 (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fan fiction? Actually, the real-world commercial concept of The Pixar Universe has been around a lot longer and is easily sourcable. The article on "The Pixar Theory" simply addresses the wider concept of the Pixar Universe. Perhaps this article would best if renamed and refocused. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alt:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 04:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ for the reasons outlined above, though I wouldn't strongly object to a move to The Pixar Universe with this as a significant contribution to that "discussion". Stalwart111 05:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See new comment below. Stalwart111 01:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input on my talkpage. The Pixar Universe is now live. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, definitely passes GNG, add Cinema Blend ([3]), The Guardian ([4]), BuzzFeed ([5]), The Daily Dot ([6]), Comic Vine ([7]), Geekosystem ([8]) to the list of the sources. Cavarrone 05:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a move to The Pixar Universe or Pixar Universe after a "keep" makes good sense and that as a topic is both a suitable accompaniment article to Pixar and will benefit the project by being expanded per available souces at the new location. Cheers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not very high quality sources. I still don't see notability established to my satisfaction. The citation to The Guardian is a blog post, for example. It looks like I'm in the minority here, though. I'm not sure how I feel about a rename. I'd probably leave that to a different discussion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About The Guardian blog, you should distinguish between self-published blogs, which are usually unreliable, and newspaper and magazine blogs written by professional journalists, which are usually reliable. Cavarrone 20:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I'm sure that NinjaRobotPirate was simply unaware that certain types of blogs are eminently acceptable. No doubt the closer will simply disregard an incorrect assertion made in innocence.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm quite familiar with that policy. I never said the source was self-published or that policy forbids the use of news blogs, so I don't understand where your post is coming from. However, I did say that blog posts are not sufficient to convince me of notability, and this is a blog post... in a news blog. Thus, still not sufficient to convince me of notability. Note: this is my opinion, and thus it may differ from yours. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected as much and was simply being kind in offering you a way to regroup with dignity. Your choice to concentrate on just the one offered source makes it appear that you are ignoring that the guideline acceptable WP:NEWSBLOG was not the only source offered. And if you are aware of applicable guidelines and still choose to promote a stance that runs contrary to existing consensus and community standards, that's on you... and good luck. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should be a bit more concerned about the consensus of "outside" opinion of Wikipedia. It was originally founded with the idea of being a respected and trustworthy source of serious information. Good luck with that. Although the other way is maybe more fun. :-) -Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge to a potential article on "Pixar Universe". or maybe even better "Pixar worldview." By WP:Common sense and WP:WP is an encyclopedia. People look to WP as a source of serious information. Our articles are often cited, or copied uncited by major news media. In this case the original essay was not serious. Is anyone seriously proposing that the artists at Pixar have some master guidelines to make their stories interconnect, rather than just that they sometimes joke around and make references to other Pixar stories -- as they do to other pop culture? The topic is not serious, the original source and the sources commenting on it are not serious, it does not belong in an encyclopedia where naive people might take it seriously. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- - P.S. I don't think an article on the Disney worldview would be out of line. I think lots of sources could be found which discuss it. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Pixar Universe is now live. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - AND was itself itself taken to AFD just 23 minutes after going live. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That reply (and frankly this entire AfD) smacks of WP:I don't like it. It may not be serious, but it's got enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Is there any part of WP:NOT you can specifically point to? Ansh6 6 6 19:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quite true, I don't like that fact that WP editors think this is a suitable topic. I am a MAJOR Pixar fan and I think the topic is a lot of fun, but not encyclopedia stuff. Let me try to think policy-wise... None of the sources are really a secondary source giving information about a real "Pixar Theory" or "Pixar Universe." They are clever fans and comedians making jokes and joking about each others' jokes. There is no real secondary source to fullfil GNG. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete no indication of any lasting significance or coverage - merely fluff story filler of the day. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You want policy. You can't handle policy. (I was joking there.) Seriously though, our article starts out: "The Pixar Theory is a thesis by Jon Negroni that theorizes that every character that is created by Pixar lives within the shared universe. The theory was derived..." Please provide a secondary source that says the "Pixar Theory" is a thesis or a theory? To me this implies it was seriously proposed as possibly true by Mr. Negroni. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And since Mr. N. is a living person WP:BLP can be invoked as well. :-) Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it remains well and properly sourced and not in any way defamatory toward Jon Negroni as a person, I think we're safe under WP:BLP considerations. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Preceding the Negroni thesis by a decade, the concept of there being a "Pixar Universe" has been noted in media since at least 2003. So I have been working on User:MichaelQSchmidt/The Pixar Universe and seek input for it either being acceptable itself as a separate article or perhaps merged into Pixar... and in either instance becoming a possible target for The Pixar Theory. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article is much better since it presents multiple views on the issue in a fair way. I haven't checked out your sources but from what you have I would suggest you post it, and I would defend it in an AfD. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Pixar Universe is now live. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a fluff story resulting in a couple whimsical online articles a few weeks ago. The referenced articles themselves don't actually discuss the "theory" in any depth (which is rather amazing given their length); in fact they don't do much more than note the existence and author of the concept and mention that it holds that the Pixar characters share a common universe. Since we're not the news, and since WP:N requires more substantial coverage, this article should be deleted. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no significant coverage past the standard "omg this is interesting let's run a story on it" from a few news orgs and then the "omg let's not let the others run it without us doing such" from the rest. Nonnotable. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 21:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to relevant articles. Yes, there are a handful of weak sources that use this phrase. However, its notability is entirely contingent on the well-known films it describes. It is properly one small portion of the potential body of literary interpretation and criticism of these films, and showcasing it by itself in a separate article is essentially (though unintentionally) a POV fork. The result of the merge should not be to remove the information it contains - indeed, it might end up copied a few times at the target locations, though hopefully in a somewhat more concise form. Wnt (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient notable coverage yet. Rklawton (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a fan theory that was "interesting" to be pointed to by numerous sources during an otherwise slow news period, but there's been no enduring coverage of it. If anything, it could potentially be an internet phenomena but even then it fails to be shown how it has any persistent staying power. As others have noted, if these other sources even weighed in on the reasonableness of the theory, that may be something to keep, but otherwise this is just yet another interesting thing shared rapidly across the Internet. --01:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
~~Keep~~. Merge meets GNG. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 01:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Pixar Universe with Schmidt's draft as a base. I still think there is an argument for keeping this but I'm genuinely surprised we don't have an article about the broader universe itself which, as Schmidt's draft demonstrates, has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Create that article and merge/redirect this material across. Stalwart111 01:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 03:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Article on The Pixar Universe is now live, and might be considered a suitable redirect target for The Pixar Theory. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HOWEVER, it was itself taken to AFD just 23 minutes after being brought to the project. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's an article on much the same topic, using the same references which have been impeached here, so I am surprised that it was published while this discussion was ongoing. I believe the information it contains over and above that of this article is problematic for various reasons. I invite all participants in this AfD to contribute to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pixar Universe. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, but dismissing them is not "impeaching" (such a highly charged term), as it is always difficult to "impeach" or refute or rebut what is published in reliable sources, specially when we do not care for "truth" only "verifibility" that something said to have been written was actually written . As for not waiting for this AFD to conclude (and a keep or a no consensus seemed possible), Its called WP:HANDLE, and certainly a use of some of them made sense in creating what was hoped to be a perhaps suitable redirect target... one which contains additional sources using the term "Pixar Universe" which were not used in the subject being discussed for deletion herein. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If a film company had secretly had a shared universe across all its movies over the course of a couple of decades, and that fact was discovered by a random fan, that would likely have been something. However, that didn't happen. Pixar has specifically said this isn't true, which makes an article on it rather pointless. Might be worth a sentence in the Pixar article, but that's about it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've just described every conspiracy theory covered on WP, most of which respective governments have specifically said aren't true. That doesn't make those theories non-notable. Actually, the fact that Pixar has sought to respond to this particular theory suggests it's notable enough for them to have taken note of it. Stalwart111 12:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but did the Pixar corporation itself actually and anywhere officially state that the numerous artists and writers, familiar with earlier works and trained in Pixar's ways of doing things, did not use that trained knowledge to maintain a logical consistancy in works created for Pixar? Did Pixar as a corporation choose at any time over the last 10 years to refute the term "Pixar Universe" as used by multiple sources? All I found was the brief interview of Pixar employee Jay Ward and nothing "official" stemming from the big wigs themselves. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to The Pixar Universe, which is a much better container for this sub-topic. I would vote to delete this topic on its own because I don't think notability has been established supporting it as an independently notable topic, but it's absolutely viable for inclusion in a larger article on The Pixar Universe, given that it is verifiable (and kind of interesting, not that that matters). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Obscure drivel reproduced or discussed by some blogs on the same slow news day. If you actually included what the Pixar guy said, including "I think somebody had a lot of time on their hands. They may have had some other recreational activities." then it might turn in to a BLP problem. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And just what THAT tells us is "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." Conclusion: AS this event is non-routine, IF it receives continued coverage, it could merit its own article. However, even if not meriting its own article (yet) under WP:NOTNEWS, its coverage still allows the topic to be spoken of somewhere (ie: "can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics") even if not in its own article. And please, referring to a topic spoken of in numerous independent reliable sources, and not just in "some blogs", as "obscure drivel" feels a little of personal opinion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

see google: the pixar universe seems GNG worthy to me -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 19:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to "The Pixar Universe" per WP:NOTNEWS, as a one-event conjecture or brain-belch (not really a time-tested "theory"), to merge as perhaps one sentence, or remove as fan fiction. -Wikid77 23:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A "theory" that can be summed up in half a sentence in the Pixar article. Not every "viral" blog post should have an article. Gamaliel (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pixar or delete. One person's opinion without ongoing coverage is not worthy of a stand-alone article. This could easily be covered in the main article. Reso lute 01:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOTNEWS and barely notable, just a theory about a series of animated films, so has almost no credible notability. doktorb _words^deeds 07:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Pixar Universe. The theory appears to be notable, but only barely. A brief mention on the main article would be acceptable, but it having its own article is unacceptable. — Richard BB 11:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Pixar Universe per WP:GNG and WP:PAGEDECIDE (notable content can still be relocated elsewhere if it provides better context). Note that WP:NOTNEWS is only for self-published news (that should go at WikiNews) and routine news items, while this subject is neither. Diego (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as demonstrably notable per the sources presented, then merge on editorial grounds to the more comprehensive article at The Pixar Universe. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Pixar Universe. Herostratus (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Pixar Universe; together, they are notable enough. Neutron (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both this article and The Pixar Universe are in AFD. Is the goal to purge this subject? As others have noted, together the idea is notable. Neither article really develops the idea in an encyclopedic manner. I think there is enough coverage out there for this article to be rewritten. I'd even be willing to take a stab at it. I think a developed Wiki article based on reliable news coverage could be useful rather than blog posts about the theory. NewsTeamAssemble (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I closed the discussion as no consensus, but it was requested to be reopened. The following was my close rationale: "The result was no consensus. In general, the keep !voters contend the this topic has received enough coverage in reliable sources to qualify for an article and that it is a "recognized meme", the delete !voters contend that the topic is "fan fiction", has "no indication of any lasting significance or coverage", fails WP:NOTNEWS and is lacking enough significant coverage in reliable sources, and the merge !voters contend that the content is worthy of being merged to another article or articles, with a significant lean toward merging to The Pixar Universe. (Non-administrator closure.)" Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:26, 14 September 2013 (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.