Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cars 2 (film) (2nd nomination)

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. John254 19:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cars 2 (film)

Cars 2 (film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Future film that we're too early in history to make good predictions about (I think the general rule is that the maximum number of years in the future a film should be released to have a Wikipedia article should be 3 and for this one it is 4. Georgia guy (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Lots of secondary coverage. An almost ideal candidate for a movie subject that hasn't come out yet. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep because animated films are different from live-action films in being produced, especially in length, so WP:NFF is tricky to apply here. I don't think that WP:FILM has quite ironed out the differences, so I'm willing to hear any thoughts about keeping or deleting this particular article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Striking out "Weak" -- fully OK with keeping it now. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: If this is kept, it should be moved to Cars 2. No need for the (film) extension. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Celarnor's sources, seems to be easily verifiable even if it's four years down the road (no pun intended). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: It may be worth listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cars 2 (October 2006) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cars 2 (2nd nomination) (January 2008), since the title is slightly different. How can this be done? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. There's enough here to support a stub, at least, so long as the promotional garbage can be kept out. There's no point in deleting it and recreating it later at some arbitrary time because it's "close enough to the release". --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: Disney-Pixar announced the film today in a press release: therefore it's being animated and will be released: animated films perfect their story and do not suffer development hell like live action films. Alientraveller (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment *cough* The Black Cauldron *cough* But yes, the track record of Pixar and Disney today is quite strong in this regard. --Dhartung | Talk 23:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: The announcement is an official document that shows the films future release, and until otherwise should be kept as an upcoming film. CJMylentz (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: Pixar has a track record that would indicate that this film will be released. The lead time for their features is about that long. At the very least, it would be notable as a film that they did not release. Group29 (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Alientraveller. It was announced yesterday (9 April) that it will be released within the next few years Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 04:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Officially announced, plenty of sources. No WP:CRYSTAL issue here. Previous AFDs were done at a time when this was legitimately a crystal ball issue, but now that the announcement has been made, circumstances have changed. I have taken the liberty of changing the deleted Cars 2 article page into a redirect to this one, as the name format is more appropriate. 23skidoo (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• You didn't need to do that. If there is no other article on Wikipedia titled "Cars 2", then the film article belongs there. Since we can't move it there now, I'm going to have to request a move from Cars 2 (film) to Cars 2 after this AFD closes. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep It has been officially announced, but if you want to spoil the release of the future films to others 4 years earlier, then go ahead. Azzstar (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Well, that's new... spoiling people about the very existence of a film. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't think having a guideline for how many years in advance of release there should be an article is much use. I've been keeping an eye on these things for a few years, and I've noticed that predictive reliability varies greatly among different studios; some studios can't give a reliable date within the same year, while others are reliable 4-5 years down the line. Disney/Pixar is one of the latter, which is why I think this should be kept. Their history has shown that they take their deadlines pretty seriously. Esn (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The WP:CRYSTAL thing no longer applies, as demonstrated. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The Toy Story 3 article was around for a long time before anything came to be, and giving this has had a press release, it should definitely stay. - ǀ Mikay ǀ 13:08, 13 April 2008 (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.