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 keep. While there are still many citation needed tags, the consensus is clear in the later half of the discussion to keep mostly because of the sources according to many JForget 00:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Pixar film references[edit]

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

Entirely original research. Literally every source is the film itself, without a secondary source verifying that these are indeed intentional references by the filmmakers. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 05:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I'm usually very cautious when falling on the side of "delete" on an article of as long standing and with as many contributions as this, but the reference situation is both absurd and unsolvable. The one caveat I will offer is this: if the list can be pared to verifiable Pixar references, then I see no reason to delete. But... a) that will probably leave us with a very short list and b) that will inevitably be a list which is realistically incomplete. Uhm. I'm babbling. In short, yeah, a lot of work has been done on this article but it's pure, uncut original research at this point. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete this belongs on the IMDB.com trivia pages, not here.--Pontificalibus (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: I will refrain from siding on the "Keep" or "Delete" side of the fence -- I have been quite active in maintaining this page and would prefer "Keep", but I also trust TenPoundHammer's opinion and agree with his "Delete" criteria. That said, I would like to turn you to this week's entry in discovering Pixar easter eggs over at /film, and to Toy Story 3 director Lee Unkrich's Twitter feed from this week where he explictly talks about easter eggs in the upcoming film and recently released trailer here, here, and here for starters. I mention this as a response to TenPoundHammer's question about whether these are intentional references by the filmmaker or not. As for the references being the film itself, I point out that the timecodes in the article references are used to pinpoint the specific moment in the films the occurrence exists, as opposed to simply saying "it's in the film, trust us" and using a generic film ref. SpikeJones (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I still don't think that's much help. The Twitters are primary sources, and citing the film itself is original research. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But we do have a secondary article from an oft-cited site (/film, for example) that quotes the filmmaker (via twitter or otherwise directly) saying that they intentionally place these references in their films. That should count, yes? SpikeJones (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's only one secondary source though. Everything else is primary or OR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: It's widely published and discussed that Pixar films often reference one another. You can listen to commentaries by the creators and artists on the discs, visit sites like slashfilm and others to see where easter eggs are discussed, etc. The main reason for citations of the films themselves is that other editors have asked for documentation of where the reference occurs in the original film. So of course the page would have multiple listings of citations from the original works. I've contributed many to the article.

A list of secondary sources that could be/are used:

Your entire supposition "Entirely original research. Literally every source is the film itself, without a secondary source verifying that these are indeed intentional references by the filmmakers." is indeed false and is easily proven so by references within the article itself to slashfilm, Pixar blogs, JimHillMedia, the LA Times, etc. that you conveniently overlook. Additionally, you dismiss the tweets by the creator of one such film as "not much help" when you are claiming that there are no outside sources when it specifically addresses your claim that it's not verifying whether the references are intentional. I'd offer that if the creator of a work is discussing pertinent material - regardless of media - that it is a secondary source considering it is NOT the film itself and is referring to the film. (Is that not the definition of a secondary source?) Referencing the family of Pixar films in subsequent or earlier films is a noted part of the Pixar culture and is identified with the brand itself - e.g. with ever new Pixar release there are multiple sites and blogs that hunt for such references.

Perhaps more sources away from the films need to be included, but the grounds for deletion are dubious at best.Pejorative.majeure (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I support adding some of the more reputable sources, but forums are to be avoided. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

True. I'm just citing other locations of this information. But given the prevalence of coverage on review sites and in other media, the topic is notable and is part of Pixar itself. It also serves as a useful tool and the page is ranked highly in Google searches so it's providing somewhat useful information. Therefore it shouldn't be deleted. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: Interview with Pixar's John Lassetter by MTV has John specifically addressing putting references into Pixar films: We do little homages in our films... unbiased 3rd-party? Check. Pixar staff explicitly stating including references in films? Check. Me, beating a dead horse? Check. SpikeJones (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Essentially a collection of trivia without proper context. Whatever useful information there is is best merged into the individual film articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Listing all references in the specific films would create pages that are overlong and would presumably inspire another individual to recreate this page. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No to the former, and the latter is pure conjecture. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: This page was broken out from the primary Pixar page because that page was getting overly long. By having a central location of all references, it also keeps each individual film article from having a references (or as some have called it, "trivia") section of their own. SpikeJones (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: I would think that this article needs to stay, it's an attempt to collect all the PIXAR references into one article, the page also has over 32,000 bytes of information, it's very useful. Furthermore, I'm pretty shocked that this has been nominated for deletion, because of the reasons I explained above. Admittely, I haven't learnt wikipedia's original research rules, but I still think this article is worth keeping. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Furthermore, deleting the page may result in someone in near furture re-creating the page, since it's needed for several purposes. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aside from the dismissive note that this is purely original research, which is shown to be false, it seems the consensus so far is to keep the page and include more third-party sources, including the original poster. Can the Delete note be removed and replaced with a need more resources note regarding third party pages? Pejorative.majeure (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consensus is still forming. Let the AfD take its course. There's nothing to stop you from improving the page with third party sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - this seems like pure trivia to me. I guess that sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but it's hard to give a more precise rationale; despite the references given above, I'm just not convinced this is an encyclopaedic subject for an article. Perhaps it could be cut down and merged somewhere? Robofish (talk) 12:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - On page 297 of the Disney-Pixar published book, ISBN 978-0756654320 Pixarpedia, the introductory text for that section says Learn the significance of "A-113" and how it appears in every Disney-Pixar feature. Take a closer look at each film and spot all the secret cross references.... If this content is important enough for Disney to include in a Pixar-specific encyclopedia of their own, one would think it would qualify here. On the bright side, that book section would qualify for references in addition to the help timecodes that we've been using so far. SpikeJones (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question What are "help timecodes"? --Bejnar (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Third party sources are a bit thin on the ground, but there are certainly enough secondary sources to make this not OR. Unfortunately, I think that the claim this is "pure trivia" is essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Many topics seem trivial to many, or even most, readers but as long as they are covered in specialty encyclopedias like Pixarpedia there seems little reason to exclude them from Wikipedia (WP:NOTPAPER etc.). Note that if once the OR is trimmed out of the article it ends up being quite short, I don't have an issue with a merge, I am just not sure where would be a good target though. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - The sources exist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there are sources, ADD. THEM. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, and focus on improving refs. While I hestitated in expressing an opinion earlier, the subsequent discussion with TenPoundHammer identified what the issues in the article were that can be overcome by keeping the piece. Recommend keeping the article and improving the references contained therein as repeated by those above. We'll need to better identify what others are calling WP:OR vs the citable items, but that falls under "article improvement" and the talk page. SpikeJones (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep but improve. AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete' as a random intersect between two concepts. The concept of a Pixar film reference is not an independently notable one so a list of such, especially one so thinly sourced, is not encyclopaedic. Guy (Help!) 14:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I'm confused. What two concepts? Hobit (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per User:Eluchil404, but continue to work on sourcing. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep This is a no-brainer. Lots of good citable info, that many readers are interested in. Will somebody please think of the children.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[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.