Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Good Dinosaur

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 redirect to Pixar#Product pipeline. Keep arguments that "This article will gain importance in the following months", "information will be gathered" and "it will have to be recreated anyway" are pure WP:UPANDCOMING. JohnCD (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Good Dinosaur[edit]

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

No proof offered that film is in active production, with sequences being rendered. Per WP:NFF, this film article exists way too early and should be deleted and instead redirected to Pixar. McDoob AU 93 12:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. --McDoob AU 93 12:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike the Spanish film Dia de los Muertos (2015 film) whose release is not until the fall of 2015 (too far in the future for a good article,) this film's release is only 2 years in the future, and some information is known. It will get bigger eventually. Georgia guy (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By that argument, Dia de los Muertos is "only" three years away, and some information is known about that too. But both fail notability guidelines for future films, and there is little more here than a press release. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. It's 3 1/2 years away. 3 1/2 years is definitely too far away. Georgia guy (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an arbitrary figure. Is there a guideline that says that a film two years in the future is okay, but three and a half isn't? No. But there is one that governs notability for future films. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pixar#Product pipeline to prevent premature article recreation. Delete stub for now. WP:NFF exists to prevent premature articles on films "planned" to be shot years into the future. Since policy does allow that properly sourced information on future events might at least be spoken of somewhere, and we do not as yet have enough information OR enough sourcing for this to even be considered as a possible exception to the guideline for unmade films, we can send readres to the one place where it might be mentioned in context to Pixar's plans for future films. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and rd per Michael Schmidt. Recreate when you have more than a sentence to say about the topic. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pixar list of film articles indicates multiple references for this one (and one in fact leads to a much more extensive article from the same source which would be a better reference - showing prototype artwork). Release is not far away by the standards of animation. Orfeocookie (talk) 10:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But is the film out of the pre-production process? Even if it was, WP:GNG#Events would not be met, as this is little more than a press release. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.This article will gain importance in the following months, if deleted, it will have to be reacreated anyway, for it has a final title already. Deleting will be a waste of time.Gussisaurio (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this article should be kept as information will be gathered. 109.149.86.254 (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:NFF, "information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material". If we redirect, information can slowly be built up there, until such time as this meets the guideline and becomes notable. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. WP:NFF is clear: "In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process..." No evidence has been presented that it is out of preproduction, and it probably isn't. Wehpudicabok (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. WP:NFF is clear. I would invite the editors opting to "keep" to familiarise themselves with this guideline (and WP:CBALL). This is little more than an announcement. Should really have been speedily redirected. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Is it possible (not very likely, but possible) that while this film is in its current stage its release date could be pushed back to a year like 2020?? Georgia guy (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This is possible. It is also quite possible that this project is cancelled altogether. Anything is possible. What's the relevance? --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you not concur that as the topic has some limited sourcability, it would be reasonable enoug to redirect it for the time being to the one place where it makes sense to have it mentioned? Or that the redirect might act to prevent an untimely recreation? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC) Struck question. I see the editor agrees that a pre-emptive redirect would have been the better course than this AFD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If you deleted it, someone will have to add it back. 75.111.18.181 (talk) 00:49, 6 May 2012 (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.