Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pixar Universe


 * 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. Reclosing to fix template error, previously closed by User:Buffbills7701. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The Pixar Universe

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is original research which has seized on a particular journalistic shorthand and misinterpreted it to mean something entirely different. The concept of a "shared universe" described in this article isn't actually supported by the sources. Most of them are using the term "Pixar universe" to describe Pixar's body of work in general, not to refer to the particular concept described in this article's lede. Even those that do posit some sort of shared universe are either unreliable blogs, and/or do not describe the subject in sufficient detail to meet our coverage requirements for notability.

See also Articles for deletion/The Pixar Theory. Psychonaut (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 10:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep as article author. There is no doubt at all that the term "Pixar Universe" HAS been used in and by numerous sources since at least 2003. If it is felt that repeating that which is stated in reliable independent sources elsewhere becomes original research here, or that the article draws improper conclusions through how it is written and presented, then THOSE are issues best addressed through regular editing, and not through deletion. Thanks for waiting a full 23 minutes before nomming. Cheers,  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 10:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, please let me explain why further editing cannot bring this article into compliance with our policies. I had a quick look for sources before nominating the article, and at your request for further collaboration I did a more thorough search this afternoon.  Apart from discussion of the blog post which is the subject of The Pixar Theory, I didn't turn up anything reliable which uses the term "Pixar universe" in the sense used in this article.  The sources you are currently using do not support this interpretation, and so should be removed from the article.  This leaves the basic premise of the article entirely unsupported by reliable sources; the lede would have to be removed as unsourced, along with virtually all the material not connected to The Pixar Theory.  That would leave this article as effectively a duplicate of The Pixar Theory, and should be deleted as such. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - nominating something that was created to address concerns in a concurrent AFD really is a bit pointy. It seems fairly obvious that while the concept might be notable (having received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources), the content of the article is a work-in-progress (that progress being an ongoing discussion elsewhere as to what should be included in this article). Nominating it 23 minutes after creation is just silly. The author has spent days pre-empting its creation by drawing attention to his user-space draft during which time you could easily have raised concerns. In fact, he raised it with you on your talk page and you didn't respond. Stalwart 111  10:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And creating an article on what is essentially the same topic as that of another article currently undergoing a deletion discussion isn't pointy? Please let's discuss this nomination on its merits (i.e., the WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:N concerns, and the possibility that the phrase as used in most of the sources has been misinterpreted) rather than casting aspersions on the page creator's or AfD nominator's motivations. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course the creation wasn't pointy - it was the express result of multiple collegial discussions with other editors and a wider discussion in that AFD where a new article was suggested by multiple editors. It was created as a good-faith attempt to resolve an identified problem. To be frank, I have no clue as to your motivation - I really don't get this AFD at all. Stalwart 111  11:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (EC) NOT intended at all to be pointy, even if the nom "felt" it was. In that other discussion, there were issues raised that the concept of a "Pixar Universe" preceded Jon Negroni's 2013 "theory thesis" by nearly a decade, and I had asked his opinion on his talk page (and others) and posted a request for input at that AFD before going live with an article that, rather than concentrating only on a recent thesis as did the other article, attempted to broaden the scope for our readers so as to address a wider issue. The nom is certainly allowed to nominate anything you wish within these pages, and not casting aspersions... I suppose a speedy AFD was his "answer" to my earlier request for input.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 12:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I was not arguing that the article creation was pointy. I was trying to demonstrate that tarring this nomination with the WP:POINT brush is just as easy, and just as wrong, as tarring the article.  You'll notice the conspicuous absence of any reference to WP:POINT in my nomination—which, incidentially, anyone who still doesn't understand the motivation for really should read.  The issue is the apparent misinterpretation of the sources, and their lack of coverage, not the authors of this article. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per above: clearly meets WP:GNG, and it's obviously a work in progress, having just been started yesterday in response to the other AfD and moved to mainspace an hour ago. Ansh666 10:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm going to WP:AGF and assume the nomination was misguided, not pointy; but this article was AfDed 23 minutes after creation, and the topic appears to pass WP:N/WP:GNG. Psychonaut's failure to discuss the merits of this article, despite being given several chances to do so, is concerning. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What "several chances" did I pass over in the 23 minutes of this article's existence? I was not involved in the drafting of it, and in fact by the time I was made aware of the draft's existence it had already been moved out of userspace.  (See further details on my user talk page.)  You can bet that, had I received notice of the draft while it was still under construction, I would have raised exactly the same concerns then, and strongly advised the author(s) not to publish it. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The referred to "chances" may have been my earlier request on your talk page (and others) and at that AFD itself. Your earlier opinion there seemed to conclude that per WP:N we need wider coverage of the topic, rather than an article based upon a "fluff story" which had gone viral. Others responded to my request for input, even if you did not. So I acted.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 12:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. The nom's analysis seems correct: The use of the expression "Pixar universe" in the cited sources unrelated to "The Pixar Theory" (and source 2 doesn't even contain the word universe) does not support the concept of a "Pixar Universe" set forth in the article's lead. The only sources related to the concept of a shared universe are the ones connected with Negroni's Huffington Post article, which is being discussed at Articles for deletion/The Pixar Theory. The creation of this article seems to be an attempt to obfuscate that deletion discussion without offering any relevant additional material. Deor (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Good eyes, and thanks for catching that. I had so many windows opened on my PC's desktop, I used the wrong one. THIS is the Slashfilm citaton I intended... and will now fix. My appreciations.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 12:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: a comment I recently posted to the nom's talk page included "I think the second article's AFD could/should result in either a better article per work based upon Talk:The Pixar Universe or a merge into Pixar... either of which result improves the project as comments at the earlier AFD pointed the way. As for issues with the second article, and as I think we agree the concept of something called "The Pixar Universe" has been spoken of in media since at least 2003, WP:IMPERFECT and WP:WIP seem applicable. Lets fix over time and through regular editing, rather than toss. A second point is that I we had no section AT Pixar where I felt it could fit. Suggestions for how/where to merge it would be most appreciated."  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 14:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You say that "the concept of something called 'The Pixar Universe' has been spoken of in media since at least 2003", but there's no evidence that the instances of the expression "the Pixar universe" (note the non-capitalization) you've turned up have anything to do with "a 'shared universe' in which every character that is created by Pixar exists", as the lead of the article states, or even that any sort of coherent concept underlies the individual uses of the expression. One might refer to "the MGM universe" or "the quasi-medievalism of William Morris's fictional universe" to allude to certain characteristics that all MGM films or all of Morris romances have in common, but certainly not implying that they are all set in a shared world. As it stands, this article is nothing but a duplicate of The Pixar Theory with irrelevant and misleading "references" added. Deor (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There's interesting reads here and in ABC-CLIO's "Disney, Pixar, and the Hidden Messages of Children's Films" (ISBN 0313376727) and in this master's thesis all of which predate Negroni's posting of his own Pixar theory (resulting in an article title here which itself suffers from improper capitalization... but there like here it is an addressable quibble that is not a major issue) and yes, there is more coverage resulting from Negroni's bringing attention to the concept and calling it a "theory". Yes the article needs work, and since you have waxed, so shall I. Articles covering shared universes exist here, ie: DC Universe, and indeed some such shared universes have been explored in some detail. ie: Star Trek, Marvel Universe, Marvel Cinematic Universe, Marvel Universe Online, Marvel Universe Roleplaying Game, and Marvel Universe (toyline), Forgotten Realms, Babylon 5, Foundation series, Dragonlance, Rangers, Man-Kzin Wars, Cthulhu Mythos, The Sims, Zork, and the 1632 series, to name but a few... and of course the many articles about various ORPGs that share a similar universe and logical consistency.  And now that Pixar/Disney has released a gaming system (see Disney Infinity) where players can create and play many diverse Pixar and Disney characters in the same game, it is difficult to think that Wikipedia has no place for an article discussing the "universe" created by Pixar (and now including Disney)... however it is framed or where-ever it might be merged.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 16:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - seems like a valid article topic, all that other stuff "notable", "encyclopedic", blah blah. ~ Charmlet -talk- 15:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I think notability is plainly established by sourcing, and it skirts being original research (perhaps barely). I caution anyone commenting on this against confusing this article with The Pixar Theory, which is a far more specific sub-topic of this overarching topic. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  16:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no "Pixar Universe" as per Pixar itself. Not every idea from a viral blog post deserves an article. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 01:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename and refocus to Pixar worldview. Here are two serious sources that discuss the overall worldview of Pixar films: http://www.equip.org/articles/the-wisdom-of-pixar/  http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/2011/05/14/the-hidden-message-in-pixars-films/  This is a notable topic regardless of any Pixar shared universe. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * An excellent compromise that allows further expansion along the same lines as the marketing strategy behind the Hidden Mickey. I concur. Renaming and adjusting focus makes sense. Schmidt,  Michael Q. 16:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per Kitfoxxe and WP:GNG. Critical commentary about the worlds created by a single author or company are common (see Styles and themes of Hayao Miyazaki, Roles of mothers in Disney media, ). The article needs not be about a the idea of shared univere only; there are enough sources for a viable topic expanding on all reviews about themes found in Pixar works. The exact nature of the coverage included in the topic is open to editorial discretion, that should be dealt with at the article's talk page. Diego (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Themes in Pixar films might be better, since that already seems to be an established form here on WP. I only found one source that said "Pixar's worldview" or something like that.  The others talked about Pixar films supporting the Christian worldview.  The word "worldview", or as our article says "world view", is often used by Christian "culture warriors."Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So you guys want an article with a different title that deals with a different topic. How, exactly, is that an argument for the preservation of this article about this topic? Deor (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps intended under WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD, and we'd have a WP:MOVE to a modified title and a rewriting of the lede to change the intended focus to encourage expansion. Perhaps.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 02:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, with The Pixar Theory merged in, and give the interested editors a chance to add in more relevant information (such as examples of the "internal references", like Mike Wazowski from Monsters Inc. snorkeling through the credits of Finding Nemo. Not every article has to be about something serious.  Neutron (talk) 23:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I voted to merge The Pixar Theory here, and I think together they just about make a passable article. As a side note, should this article be moved from The Pixar Universe to just Pixar Universe? —  Richard  BB  07:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think a move to Kitfoxxe's Themes in Pixar films or perhaps a move to Themes in the Pixar universe (lower-case "u" until sources use upper case) would be sensible in encouraging the article to become broader in scope.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 11:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as OR. At best some of the trivia might be salvaged and placed in the main Pixar article or in The Pixar Theory. Artw (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OR??? Trivia??? We have Pixar themes spoken of in multiple available sources such as Entertainment Weeky Forbes Green Pages and then we have official WP:NEWSBLOGs such as this and books. You may feel such coverage and analysis is "trivial", but an expanded article with a changed focus would be far from "OR".  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 18:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Michael, please stop moving the goalposts. This debate is about whether to keep this article, not some putative article on a much broader topic. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry... and not intending to be a nudge, but my "goalposts", including my agreeing that the project is served by this article being renamed and refocused, are "moved" by WP:EG, WP:ATD and WP:HANDLE.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 01:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ironic isn't it? Someone wants the "main" article to be The Pixar Theory, when this article was created because the people at that AfD wanted this one to be the "main" article. Ansh666 19:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry... and not intending to be a nudge, but my "goalposts", including my agreeing that the project is served by this article being renamed and refocused, are "moved" by WP:EG, WP:ATD and WP:HANDLE.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 01:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ironic isn't it? Someone wants the "main" article to be The Pixar Theory, when this article was created because the people at that AfD wanted this one to be the "main" article. Ansh666 19:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep though I do not like disagreeing with Deor. It seems to me that this particular theory has received enough coverage to warrant an article. (Also, I think that the Theory article should be merged into this one, but soit.) Drmies (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:OR refers to material which is not verifiable and no published sources exist. Everything seems in the article seems to covered by reliable sources and it seems to be a notable topic.... Although I also support a merge.LM2000 (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Quite a bit of RS for this topic. However, I support the notion that a rename should be done. Beerest355 Talk 13:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep There is quite a bit of RS available. Definitely not OR. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:21, 15 September 2013 (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.