Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brave (2012 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   keep. T. Canens (talk) 03:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Brave (2012 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable future film. WP:NFF calls for the deletion of articles on films which have not started principal photography, except in the exceptionally rare case that the production of the film is itself notable. There is no indication that the creation of this film has begun. IMDB lists the film as "In Development", which clearly indicates that it is still in pre-production. Snotty Wong  speak 03:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep *facepalm* Clickpop (talk) 04:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTAVOTE.  Snotty Wong   babble 14:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't just reply to a facepalm with a "just a vote." a facepalm implies that your nomination is way off.--Milowent (talk) 04:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok... Well that may be, but there is still no reason given for his vote, so it is useless.   Snotty Wong   confer 04:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think any Pixar film is quite notable. This is not a film by Somebody's Garage, Inc, and the existence of the film is confirmed. Why the need to delete? PopTartS2000 06:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no Wikipedia policy that says every Pixar film is notable. Furthermore, the existence of the film is not confirmed.  In fact, the sources confirm that the production of the film has not yet started, therefore we can safely assume that not one frame of the film has been created yet.  WP:NFF is crystal clear that films whose production has not been started should not have articles.    Snotty Wong   communicate 13:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep (as if "strong" makes a difference). This is possibly the worst deletion nomination I've seen. It's Pixar. Come on! dogman15 (talk) 07:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not a valid rationale to keep this article (and certainly not a "strong" one). See WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ILIKEIT.   Snotty Wong   babble 13:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Seriously??? This is an ANIMATED film.  Pixar films usually take 2-3 years to complete after given the go ahead because animation takes time, Toy Story 2 being the exception.  The film has a release date, stars have been cast, a director assigned and the script finished.  Therefore, its safe to assume the animation process has been started. It's also the first Pixar film with a female lead.Bgwhite (talk) 07:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, seriously. We don't assume anything on WP, we find souces which confirm that the animation process has started. I've found sources which confirm that the animation process has not started. Therefore, this film fails WP:NFF and should be deleted. The rationale behind WP:NFF is that if, for whatever reason, Pixar decides to cancel this film before production is started, then this article would have to be deleted, which illustrates the point that there is nothing notable about this film (yet) because it simply doesn't exist. Once the production of the film starts and it becomes clear that this film will eventually be released, then the article can be re-created.  Snotty Wong   prattle 13:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You keep assuming that Brave is a regular live action film when it's an animated film. If Brave was a live action film, I would support deletion of the article.  Every Pixar film was in production for atleast 2 years except for Toy Story 2.  Toy Story 3 was in production for 3 years, Up 4 years and Wall-E atleast 3 years.  By production I mean doing the storyboarding as in animation film this is where the heavy work is at and where production is considered underway.  Pixar does 3-D storyboards and is a film unto itself.  So, yes, I'm assuming Brave is following the same pattern as there is no evidence to the contrary.  Using IMDB's entry for Brave is not evidence as imdb says the same thing about Cars 2 as Brave.  Cars 2 is clearly in production.  I can point to where Brave has been in production since September 2009, but I give as much credence to that source as IMDB.  Please show me evidence where Brave is not following the same pattern and is not in production.
 * As for Newt, Newt was in production and had a wiki page created, just like any notable film that was in production. The film was canceled and wiki page is now appropriately being merged.  If Brave is also canceled, the wiki page should also be merged.
 * Pixar is a special breed. At the moment all upcoming Pixar films are notable as Pixar has yet to release a bad film, all eligible Pixar films has been nominated for animation Oscar and all Pixar films have been in the top 5 money making films for the year except Ratatouille (#11).
 * Therefore, Brave is in production and filming by the definition of animated films, it is notable and thus conforms to WP:NFF. Bgwhite (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're still making a whole lot of assumptions about the production of this film, and there are zero sources to back up those assumptions. It makes no difference whether the film is animated or not.  The burden is on you for finding a source which unambiguously proves that the film is in production (not pre-production); the burden is not on me to find sources that prove it is not in production (even though I've done that already).  And again, show me a WP guideline that says all past, present, and future Pixar films are automatically notable, and I'll gladly withdraw my nomination for deletion.    Snotty Wong   prattle 23:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "show me a WP guideline that says all past, present, and future Pixar films are automatically notable" WP:NFF states that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."  Therefore all past and current Pixar films as with most commercially released films are notable.  As for a film in production, the NFF states, "unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines"  The notability guideline (WP:N) states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." and "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines".  As the production of Brave has received significant coverage in reliable sources and due to past Pixar films fame, importance and popularity, Brave is notable under the guidelines.
 * "It makes no difference whether the film is animated or not." Yes it does.  In the NFF it states, "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography"... the definition given to principal photography is "movie is actually filmed, with actors on set and cameras rolling"... that is for live action film and not animation.  What is the definition of principal photography in animation?  I suggest looking at this Wired article on how a Pixar film is made.  Brave has been in atleast pre-production since 2008 and actors have voiced the script.
 * Therefore, I have proven that Brave is notable due to all the significant coverage in reliable sources and fame, importance and popularity of Pixar films per WP:NFF. Furthermore that animation is presumed underway per standard Pixar procedure, therefore the animated film is under production.Bgwhite (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, no you haven't. Your quotes from WP:NFF don't actually appear in WP:NFF.  Perhaps you're confused about what WP:NFF is.  It's only the short section of that guideline which refers to future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films.  Secondly, your comment that animated films aren't subject to WP:NFF because there is no principal photography is wikilawyering.  While WP:NFF doesn't specifically deal with animated films (something I'm currently trying to change), the spirit of the guideline is clear.  Until the film is clearly out of pre-production, it's not notable unless the pre-production process itself is so unique and interesting that it can be shown to be notable.   Snotty Wong   gab 02:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I give up. If you can't "see" the quotes in the WP:NFF, WP:N and click on the link for the definition of "principal photography" in the WP:NFF...  Plus now saying it's not the "spirit" of the guideline when you have been saying show me the letter and I did show you the letter.... this will go nowhere. Bgwhite (talk) 04:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Let's let the closing admin decide.    Snotty Wong   confer 04:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Bgwhite. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * keep meets WP:N with sources in article. Hobit (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I fail to see what's so confusing about WikiProject Films/Future films: "the primary notability guideline is that the article should not exist prior to a verified confirmation of the start of the film shoot," or, in this case, the beginning of the process of animation. Until a reference is found confirming that point has been reached, this article is about a non-notable topic and should not exist. The fact that this is a Pixar film is irrelevant, the fact that this is an animated film is irrelevant, the fact that the script is finished and actors have been cast is irrelevant, and the fact that there are sources is irrelevant as well. Just as Notability (music) takes precedence over the general guideline in articles about musicians, the guideline about future films takes precedence here over the general guideline. There is even a Pixar film, Newt, that appears to have been cancelled after animation began. Clearly, then, we cannot assume anything about this film's status. Xenon54 (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * that's a pretty ironic example to use, as Newt still has an entry on wikipedia, despite having apparently been cancelled. I think the "animation started" and "single frame of animation completed" reference points for validity of an animated work are laughably outdated...in fact they were largely outdated before wikipedia was founded. Modern digitally animated films don't have a "single frame" of finished "film" until very, very far along in the process. But you surely know this. [] Regardless, a film could be cancelled or simply finished and never released at ANY point in production. Are we going to suggest that something like, oh I don't know, a film about JFK or Michael Jackson or the Pope that is completed but never released doesn't deserve a wikipedia entry? I believe that Newt DOES deserve its wikipedia page for the simple fact that it apparently was a Pixar feature film that got cancelled. That in and of itself is more relevant than most films that are actually released in the US every year. Why don't we delete the page for the probably-upcoming "Hobbit films", since they don't even have a director, much less a financially viable production company funding the project? I notice that page isn't slated for deletion. And yet I am willing to bet that Brave is much further along than The Hobbit. Benpatient (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Secondly, Newt (film) will likely be merged/redirected.  Thirdly, Wikipedia has clear standards for whether or not articles should be kept or deleted.  Upcoming Pixar films are not automatically notable, nor are they notable just because you think they should be.  There are clear standards on the notability of future films.  These standards exist for a reason.  Please read them.  Thanks.    Snotty Wong   squeal 19:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite unlikely actually, as a cancellation of a project can itself have proper notability per WP:N and WP:NFF's allowing that films "that were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines". And as that quotation is part of NFF, and as that failuure to complete is notable per WP:GNG, one really cannot use the circular logic of pointing back at NFF in an attempt to repudiate what NFF itself already quite clearly and specifically allows.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep I think you should keep the film page because development is still young and you should give it a chance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irockpolo's (talk • contribs) 06:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This film is only 2 years in the future. Georgia guy (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm with Georgia guy, it's only 2 years into the future, and I think that it's notable enough. TuneyLoon 14:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: The film is in the production stage. Quoting Mike Venturini, one of Pixar's animation supervisors, "we’re a couple of years in, with a couple of years to go". . – Nurmsook!  talk...  02:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)




 * Keep per Common sense, improving the project and the TOPIC meeting WP:GNG... that... and there being far too much content to reasonably merge elsewhere. But a bit surprised no one even considered incubation.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Far too much content? This article is a stub!  4 sentences max...   Snotty Wong   prattle 16:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to Pixar in an upcoming projects section until it actuall has significant coverage in reliable sources, and it is confirmed to be in production beyond the rough scetches and what not. Yes, it is Pixar, but that doesn't negate WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. A lot can happen in two years, and as it is now, the project itself is not notable. Having the Pixar name attached is no reason to presume it is notable when it is not even in full production yet (as confirmed by reliable sources). Remember, notability is not inherited. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * While in some cases a merge is worth considering... it must be remembered that each and every guideline begins with the specific caution that each should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception... and it is through consensus that editors create those exceptions. This topic has its multiples of multiples of ongoing and in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources stretching from 1995 through 2010, and per that coverage, guideline recognizes this topic could be "worthy of notice".  With respects, the merging of some minor content or reference to the Pixar article does not appear to what consensus is indicating in this case... as it would seem that this could be an instance where consensus of participating editors might wish this article be one of those allowed exceptions.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Does this in pre-production film have extended coverage in non-trival sources? Yes it does, ergo Keep.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jackyd101. While I can see why it was nominated, the coverage makes this case fall outside any normal case.--Milowent (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nurmsook, Pixar films take awhile to be made, and it's already in the processs - Epson291 (talk) 15:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There are no sources which indicate that this film is currently in the process of being produced, as required by WP:NFF.  Snotty Wong   prattle 16:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your wishes to the contrary, consensus of participating editors may decide that the extensive coverage of this topic in multiple reliable sources from 1995 through 2010, and the imminence of its release, might just merit this being one of those guideline encouraged exceptions.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that it matters because this AfD is all but in the bag, but there really isn't "extensive coverage of this topic in multiple reliable sources", and absolutely no evidence of the "imminence of its release". All of the sources in this article are trivial mentions, and no one has brought any additional sources to this AfD.  Just because Pixar has a marketing machine which builds hypes for its films years before they are released doesn't imply notability.  As we have seen with Newt, Pixar films are capable of being cancelled just like any other film.  You can't assume this one will be released just because most of the other films Pixar has announced have been released.  There is no reason to jump the gun and create an article like this until there is actual evidence that money is being spent on the production of the film, and it actually has a decent chance at seeing the light of day.  But, I digress, since as I already said, this AfD is all but over and apparently the inclusionists don't see it the way I do.  Oh well.  Hopefully the film does get released so that we don't have to waste time arguing to delete this article again.  Cheers.    Snotty Wong   yak 22:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia, and not surprisingly, nothing is ever "in the bag"... but is hoped, if found by consensus that this particular topic might be decided as one of the consensus accepted exceptions, that such consensus might be respected. Not wishing to continue with WP:WAX, but the Newt article's AFD did not have as much support, nor as much discussion.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:18, 29 June 2010 (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.