Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pixar universe theory


 * 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 delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Pixar universe theory

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Previously nominated in 2013 for notability issues. It seems to have not really improved since then, relies mostly on bloggers as sources, and reads almost curiously like a conspiracy-theory article. Major claims upon which the article is based (such as Brave taking place in the future, for example) are tenuous at best and absurd at worst. Perhaps most damningly, multiple Pixar sources have stated unequivocally that there is no shared universe, which puts the burden of natability on the bloggers, which I do not feel is met. I do not think the content is presently salvageable. The Pony Toast 🍞 (Talk) 19:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment if this is a notable fringe theory it may be worth an article, but not this one, which is completely incoherent. A brief outline of the theory and the opposing view would be fine. Mccapra (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I doubt this rises to the level of notable speculation, but I did find the statement Toys would eventually absorb the zero-point energy, which can travel through wavelengths entertaining. What good are "wavelengths" if you can't travel through them?? XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess the comparison would be to something like the Tommy Westphall Universe, which has been discussed in reliable sources for many years, but even that we only cover in a section of another article. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep because there are numerous reliable sources discussing this theory, both shown in the article and outside it (for example, NBCNews.com, Today.com, The Independent). This Wikipedia article is messy and warrants clean-up, but the subject is notable. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, no clean-up can really help the fact that there's no such thing as a Pixar Universe, this is at best Reddit discussion material. The word "theory" is also missuse (if anything, the correct term should be hypothesis). Similar speculations are everywhere on the net, why is this one special and not the Doctor Who-Star Trek Universe hypothesis or the Buffy/Angel-Firefly-Alien franchise universe hypothesis? Truth is, is just a fancy speculation that some Pixar fans find funny. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Similar speculations are everywhere on the net, why is this one special..." Because reliable sources have covered this subject extensively. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What "reliable sources"? Jon Negroni? I see no academic source in the article, mostly Jon Negroni and a couple of blogs. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why you are looking for "academic" sources. There are numerous appropriate news sources that cover this subject. If you reject news sources, I don't know what to tell you. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well we are discussing relevance here, and current references certainly do not show any mainstream interested on the subject, most references are self-referencial (Negroni's own website for example) and doens't have even one scholarly source. The Tommy Westphal Universe hypothesis has been discussed on scholarly circles and dosen't have its own page. This is basically a Reddit discussion turn into a Wikipedia article. What we should do is to re-direct the article to the Pixar main article adding just a small summary of the hypothesis, criticism and what Pixar personal had said in one or two paragraphs at most. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as fancruft. It might merit a mention in another article, but I don't think the two sentences one would need to summarize it and the response to it really even deserve keeping this page around as a redirect. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Dereck Camacho. Also I think this fails WP:N because most of the sources fail to be reliable per WP:UGC, and the the rest fail to meet WP:SUSTAINED. - GretLomborg (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete—insofar as there's coverage of it, it could belong somewhere else. But mostly it's a huge amount of theorycrafting that is waaaay too in the weeds for Wikipedia's general focus. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2019 (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.