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. A discussion on whether and to where to merge the article may be taken up on its talk page. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newt (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

A deleted film. This article will be of no importance 10 years from now when someone who knows all their Pixar films might stumble across this article. Georgia guy (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose Right now the only sources are blogs of undetermined reliability. Need something more verifiable before making this decision. It does look potentially genuine, though. I'm wondering if this could be added to a "List of unfinished Disney feature films" article, or something like that, instead of being outright deleted. Just a thought ... --McDoobAU93 (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  But how many unfinished Disney feature films can you name?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Destino, The Walt Disney Sketchbook, the periodic re-releasing and updating of Fantasia, King of the Elves (apparently), among others. There are numerous books written discussing these projects, so aborted Disney projects are apparently notable. If there's adequate source material to discuss Newt and what happened, it could be part of such an article. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  But Destino and Fantasia were actually made, and King of the Elves was made into an article in violation of WP:FILM guidelines. Besides, every movie studio on earth has dozens and dozens of unproduced works; because they're Disney's unproduced works doesn't make them inherently notable. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  What does make them notable are the published works describing them and discussing how they were developed and ultimately why they were canceled. If it was one of those "let's do a insert subject picture" and then Walt or someone else said "No" with no work on it, then it wouldn't be notable. But since there is significant amounts of artwork on a number of these projects, there's something more to go on. As to King of the Elves, frankly the article for Newt was created too soon as well, using the same guidelines ... but in both cases, what's done is done. Revise my vote to Redirect to another article instead of a wholesale delete. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree entirely. Just because pre-production artwork exists for a canceled film does not make it worthy of having its own article in an encyclopedia. A mention in some other article is fine, but not one of its own. If you're discussing what's found i na book, maybe the book could be covered, like John Canemaker's The Disney That Never Was, but let's not open the floodgates to the creation of articles on pictures that will never exist. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no such article, and God forbid one to exist. It'd be nice if there was a completed The Walt Disney Company article first. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a puzzling response. Why shouldn't there be such an article, provided there's enough information to merit a film's inclusion within it? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It's highly unecessary. Are we going to have a "[[List of incomplete Warner Bros. films]]" and "[[List of incomplete MGM films]]" too just because you can dig up proof that scripts and screen tests exist for them? --FuriousFreddy (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Find a reliable source that says the film has been canceled rather than shelved, then I would say delete. if it's merely been shelved, redirect to Pixar and drop in a one-sentence mention of it in the body of the article. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Even if this film is no longer on the table, it was in development at one point. We should keep the article for a record of what it would have been like, and encyclopedic information about how it was cancelled. dogman15 (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to made for films in development that never made it to production. See Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Not entirely true. Sometimes a topic may receive enough attention per WP:GNG to be "worthy of notice" and thus a topic worth considering for inclusion somewhere within these pages, even if not meriting a seperate article. Per WP:FUTURE, "it is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur (or not occur) if discussion is properly referenced, ". Even in its not being made, discussion of a film that died aborning can be worth inclusion. See my merge/redirect below. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  You're saying the same thing I'm saying; I was talking about a seperate article. A mention elsewhere is perfectly fine. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & Redirect to Pixar Animation Studios where this sourced information can be included in the existing article in context as Pixar's "first cancelled film". As the information is properly sourced, and as Pixar's first cancellation after acquisition by Disney, it is worthy of inclusion within the company's article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed, except we need something a bit more authoritative before saying it's the first so-and-so. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Since the announcement is only hours old, I might expect that these will be either confirmed or denied in sources much more reliable. With a confirmation, a merger and redirect serves. With a denial, we can always have the article again. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. Rumors of the film's "cancellation" have not been confirmed by reliable sources. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. The article probably shouldn't have existed in the first place, but the information still exists and shouldn't be deleted just because the film may not actually developed. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 19:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  But it will be trivia 10 years from now. Georgia guy (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It still attracted media attention, making it notable, though. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 19:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  How notable will this cancelled film be?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It depends - Pixar may still rework the film in the future. There's certainly been enough reliable coverage to date to keep the article. Also, there's still no official confirmation that the film is "cancelled" - just rumors flying around based on blog reports based on an unsigned email. That's hardly verifiable or conclusive proof. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you name a film that there have been lots of rumors that say that it has been cancelled, but that it was proven that it was actually still in production?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep? I've seen MANY articles for movies when they were far, far, away:
• How To Train Your Dragon
• Shrek 3
• Shrek 4
• Kung Fu Panda
• Underdog
• Madagascar 2
• Newt
• WALL-E
• Ratatouille

et cetera, et cetera. --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 20:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But this is a cancelled movie, not a movie still in production. Slashfilm officially says this. Georgia guy (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slashfilm is not Pixar, or Disney. They are also just repeating a rumor from The Pixar Blog, which in turn was based on an unsigned email. I'm not seeing anything official from Disney or Pixar yet... your claim of it being a "cancelled movie" is still just unsubstantiated rumors, for now... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you contact Pixar?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I can, as I know people there, but I'm not a citable source. So I won't. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect: The article itself has a bare bones summary and the production information twice. Once in the header and once below. It's basically a two paragraph page and has been reported cancelled by two sources - Dave Smith, the Chief Disney Archivist, and Floyd Norman, a Disney animation consultant. It is also not listed in the official Disney: A to Z Encyclopedia any longer. There is no further information on it being produced, or even on the slate for the next couple of years (at minimum). Meanwhile two 2012 pictures are officially announced. The film has been cancelled. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 08:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It appears Entertainment Weekly made the call and confirmed the news from a "source at the studio". Is this verifiable enough, or do they need to name names? --FuriousFreddy (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No doubt more information will be forthcoming as the cancellation is analyzed by industry insiders. As failures are sometimes just as newsworthy as successes. Considering the coverage this topic has had for several years, a merge and redirect to Pixar Animation Studios will nicely serve those readers who wish to know whatever happened to it. If the project is ever brought back to life... and that's always a possibility in the film industry... the article can be recreated. Past Entertainment Weekly, continued coverage is in such RS as Los Angeles Times, New York Magazine, and Market Watch. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Consensus? It appears to be merge and redirect. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 08:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Er, no. Your vote was merge and redirect. Currently I count four 'keeps' to three 'merges'. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 06:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - if it was notable before it was cancelled, it is still notable now. Thparkth (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect - The notability of this film was based on its imminent production and release. As this film no longer exists, it is not notable enough for its own article. SnottyWong talk 00:34, 20 May 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.