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 KeepMandsford 18:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous third-party references. Argument is spurious at best.Pejorative.majeure (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Yeah, unfortunately it is still a big amalgamation of original research. ReykYO! 12:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there are numerous third-party references, even with citations from the primary sources. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not exactly clear how it can be OR when so many RSes exist. Is the claim somehow that grouping them together is OR? I suppose we could create an article for each sourced film reference, but generally we use lists to stick together things that A) fit together and B) shouldn't be their own article for one reason or another. That's standard editorial discretion. [1], [2], [3], and [4]all look like very reasonable sources that cover the topic in detail. There are a number of others in the article. I personally don't care for the format of the article, but that's not really a reason to delete. Can one of the two of you above explain what you mean by OR? Hobit (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While there are plenty of primary source references, there are multiple, independent reliable sources which deal with the specific topic of references in Pixar films to other Pixar films in a non-trivial manner, meeting WP:GNG. Jclemens (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep how is this article OR? This article has more references than many other articles. Please someone explain why this is considered OR. JDDJS (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite and merge to the main Pixar article, and possibly also the individual film articles. I disagree with the suggestion that this is original research, as sources have been provided that list many references in the films. However, just because sources can be found for a long list of references doesn't mean it is appropriate for Wikipedia to have a complete list of them. I would consider this article similar to having an article List of plays in Super Bowl XLIV, with a complete list of every play. Such a list would be easily sourced, but I think almost everyone would agree that it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. In this case, I think there is sufficient coverage of how Pixar puts references of this sort into their films that the concept of them doing so should be mentioned somewhere. However, such coverage should be done in prose, giving examples of the most significant references, not as a list of all the references that can be found in any reliable source. I think a long list of references like this is the sort of thing that WP:IINFO says is inappropriate for Wikipedia (even if it doesn't exactly fit with any of the examples given there). I think that if this was rewritten as prose describing the concept of references in Pixar films and only giving the most significant examples, it would easily fit in the main Pixar article. Very prominent references in individual films could also possibly be mentioned in the articles for those films. Calathan (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are too many to include in separate pages. It will overload the other pages. And about your Super Bowl reference I disagree because you won't normally include every play in the article, but you would normally include film references in articles. The problem is that they will start to become overloaded. JDDJS (talk) 03:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<ec>I agree in part but I think that adding it to Pixar would be a huge UNDUE problem unless it was a paragraph at most. Hobit (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are way too many references across multiple films to be listed in each individual film page. References were originally on each movie when there were only a few films. With Pixar's subsequent output, along with the projected increase in theatrical releases following the Disney acquisition, it would unnecessarily bulk up the articles for each film. Also, how would this be handled? Films reference other films and then are referenced themselves. Do we then start including non-Pixar references? Pop-culture references within each film? Etc. Etc. Additionally, there are too many references to add to the lone Pixar page, as this would drastically increase the size of this page. This idea simply is not feasible. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the kind of article that can easily attract OR, but there are also some good sources that are cited. They are enough to support an article and the rest is simply clean-up. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and Merge to Pixar. The fact that Pixar references itself deserves a section in the main article with some examples, as it is covered in reliable sources. A list of every single reference in a separate article is however unnecessary, This belongs in the trivia sections of IMDB, not on wikipedia. Yoenit (talk) 09:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pixar does not reference itself. Pixar films reference each other, and these increase with each subsequent film. See the response to Calathan for a more expanded rebuttal as this idea is simply not feasible. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ANY article can atract OR, but that is why interested editors keep a watch on pages... to correct such through regular editing. The deletion discussion of February/March 2010 resulted in a keep due to numerous sources being offered at that time... and was most compelling. Its return to AFD by the same nominator 6 months later simply attracted fewer editors. It is far better sourced than many lists and would overburden the Pixar article... unless the list is reduced to a trivial paragraph... but such reduction does not serve the readers. Note: It was spun out of the Pixar article orginally as becoming too burdensome there. No need to put it back and confound the original issue. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 19:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article keeps references in a single location. Instead of spreading out references within each film's article, each short film's article, etc., this article presents a cogent list that is easily navigable. This topic (Pixar's self-referential nature) has been mentioned in print media, movie news websites, and other sources. This is notable and meets Wikipedia criteria. The fact that people occasionally do OR and post it invites editing. It does not invite outright deletion of the entire article. This has been discussed before (and presumably will be again). So the article has a purpose, describes a notable topic in the public domain, and is extremely useful.Pejorative.majeure (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definately agree, there are those numerous 3rd party sources within this article and it is certainly notable.trainfan01talk 19:39, October 22, 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Regarding the nominator's criteria of this article being WP:OR, I present the following WP-approved 3rd party sources that have covered Pixar's purposeful inclusion of self-referential items in their films:
On page 297 of the Disney-Pixar published book, ISBN978-0756654320Pixarpedia, 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....
Interview with Pixar's John Lassetter by MTV. John specifically addressing putting references into Pixar films: We do little homages in our films... is direct confirmation in mainstream press from Pixar staff
Among other 3rd-party sources in the current article: An interview by 'Creative Screenwriting Magazine' with Pixar staff, a direct quote from Lee Unkrich of Pixar, and Collider.
Keep, more than sufficient secondary sourcing. Even if the use of pinpoint primary source cites to expand on the secondary sources is considered impermissible original research, the remedywould be ordinary editing, not deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no OR, just appropriate summary of referenced material. Descriptive information on films is best taken from primary sources, interpretation from secondary. Both are available. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 24 October 2010 (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.