Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapunzel Unbraided

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 of the debate was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rapunzel Unbraided

Completing nother incomplete AFD, nominated by 81.104.165.184 (talk · contribs). Per note on talk page: unreferenced speculation, WP:NOT a crystal ball. Fan1967 19:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree with the nom and vote Delete on anything with a speculative release date of 2009. Fan1967 19:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Documented major-studio feature film that is well into production. The information on animation techniques is very valuable (although it does need a source). Per WP:NOT: "Forward-looking articles about unreleased products (e.g. movies, games, etc.) require special care to make sure that they are not advertising." I believe this article meets that guideline. Powers 19:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If you can provide some documentary evidence that this project was finished and released by 2009, feel free to produce it. 81.104.165.184 20:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • That's not what Wikipedia requires. Per WP:NOT, "If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." 22.1k hits (using phrases, so it's a valid search) on Google. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  21:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I think the quote you're looking for is: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Having taken out the stuff that is too speculative (how do we know the artists are using revolutionary new technology?) or POV (the supposed "uniqueness" of the style), what's left is Just Another Speculative Stub. 81.104.165.184 21:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete too far into the future Bwithh 19:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article itself is well-written for something occurring so far in the future. We have other examples of events in 2010 (Olympics for example). Wikipedia has articles which are far less deserving that exist, so why delete this one?--SomeStranger (T | C) 20:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment We know the 2010 Olympics will take place. This one doesn't even have a firm cast. It's pure speculation and drawing board plans. If we have less deserving articles, they should be deleted, too. Fan1967 21:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

(post edit conflict) Bzzt... fallacy! That, and (as Fan1967 also pointed out) the false assumption that all future-dated articles that currently exist are equally worthy of being there. 81.104.165.184 21:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Eh, good point. Regardless, this is still a movie by Disney, a highly reputable company and considering there are now sources, there is no reason to delete.--SomeStranger (T | C) 14:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep per Powers — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  21:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It has been announced and has a source. Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, 2009 is way too far out to justify an article. Pure crystall ball gazing. - Motor (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A major studio film that has already been announced. There is very little crystal ballism in the article. In addition, this movie has already had an IMDb page for quite some time, so it's not just notable, but beyond verifiable. -- Kicking222 22:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Well documented and easily sourced - no crystal balls here... --manchesterstudent 22:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • By being a film 3 years into the future, it is speculative by definition and necessity. 81.104.165.184 00:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and User:Motor. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Movie from a notable studio that has a notable actress and a IMDB page. The only reason why it might be deleted is because of it's far off release date which is not a criteria for deletion. Deathawk 23:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete Even mere months before its scheduled release date, a movie can easily be pulled and never see the light of day. Please also note the standard set for future music albums, which are often deleted when there's minimal information with a release date one year into the future, not to mention three. And while this may have a notable actress signed on, there's no guarantee that she'll stay signed on, nor does the presence of any singular notable actor make a picture notable. fuzzy510 02:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Notice: I've added three sources to the article. I have not yet been able to find sources for the new tools or the "non-photorealistic rendering" bits that were added by an IP editor some time ago, but those bits could be excised if needed without removing the rest of it. Please re-evaluate if you advocated deletion due to lack of documentation. Powers 13:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Recreate in 2008. -- GWO
• Keep. Interesting. Unlike the rumored, but cancelled, Fraidy Cat, whose Afd can be found here (and its consensus was to rewrite about a different meaning of the same phrase,) this is a confirmed Disney film, Georgia guy 19:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

  It's not confirmed until it's too close to release date to pull. 81.104.165.184 13:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

  Even if the film does get pulled, an article on it would be appropriate, given its attempts at changing the way 3D animation is done, and for Glen Keane's comments on 3D vs. 2D animation. Powers 17:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep while the film is not yet released, the article contains some useful information that shouldn't be deleted.  Grue  14:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This film is already in production. And it's only 3 years away from its current target release. Chris1219 13:43, 7 June 2006 (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.