Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Amazing Maurice

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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazing Maurice[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No evidence the film has entered main production, all sourced content can be merged comfortably into the book's article, this should be drafted until pre-production is shown to be notable or film is shown to enter main production, per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 13:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Voice cast has been established and art from the film has been released, a practice not done unless the film is indeed in production. Rusted AutoParts 14:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with @Rusted AutoParts. Enough information about the film is available which merits its inclusion as a page. Added some more sources this morning, showing that the film has been broadly covered in various news outlets, which is more than can be said about a lot of films in this stage of production. I will also add that unlike upcoming films like Nimona (coming in 2022), the cast is actually named, so that makes it worth keeping as a page at the present, along with what the other user has stated.Historyday01 (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notability requirements for films is that they have multiple in-depth reviews. Which this doesn't have since it's not released yet. Therefore, this should be deleted on WP:TOSOON grounds. The sources that are in the article are extremely trivial. For instance them picking cast members. Which all movies do. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's kinda bogus. There'd be multiple upcoming films that fail since they aren't out and reviewed yet. Rusted AutoParts 03:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD isn't about other films. Plus, it's not like the article can't be recreated pretty easily when it comes out and there reviews of it (if there are any). --Adamant1 (talk) 03:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you, Adamant1. I think there are enough sources when it comes to this film. If there weren't as many sources, I would agree with you, but there are, in this case.Historyday01 (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That’s kind of a non-answer, Adam. Saying “this isn’t about other films” doesn’t negate the fact you’re inpsijg a standard here that is not being applied elsewhere. It’s not a fair reason to advocate for deletion. Rusted AutoParts 17:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a perfectly fine answer. As Robert McClenon say's, films in production are only notable if there is something particularly notable about the production itself. Which isn't the case here. I don't have a double standard about it, because I would vote exactly the same way for the same reason if the other films had AfDs. They don't though. So they really aren't relevant. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your point was that it didn’t have “multiple in-depth reviews”, not “what Robert McClenon said”. Having “multiple in-depth reviews” doesn’t occur until after release, so no, it’s not a fine answer, it’s an unfair standard you’re applying here and not to other articles. Rusted AutoParts 20:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Adamant1 is applying an unfair standard here, without question. Historyday01 (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Historyday01: Feel free to point out another AfD about a film where I voted keep purely on the existence of sources about the casting. Until then, I'd appreciate it if you AGF and not make things personal. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to ping me in this conversation, Adamant1, but whatever. I didn't name call or say anything bad about your character as a person, so I'm not getting "personal," whatever that means.Historyday01 (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Please read the film notability guideline in detail again. The guideline is often misread, and films in production sometimes get accepted because the guideline is misread, but films in production are only notable if production itself is notable. Normally notability does require reviews, and reviews require that the movie be viewed. The fact that the guideline is often misread doesn't change the guideline, which is that unreleased films are seldom notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So what exactly constitutes “notable production”? Extensive reporting on where and when it films? How many sources talk about it? What’s wrong with this articles sources to say “this production isn’t notable”? Rusted AutoParts 20:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOSOON. Film isn't slated for release until sometime in 2022, voice actors were JUST cast. Animation may or may not have already begun...and even if it has, its production is hardly notable yet. The arguments being made that there are sources all center around the announcements of the film/cast. History has shown that lots of animated films get announced and then never get made/released, for example Pixar's Newt...announced (with cast) in 2008 with release in 2011. Cancelled in 2010. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per @Rusted AutoParts. The film has already started production and its references make it notable as an article. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is draftifying an option? That seems like a reasonable ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drafting it might not be a good option if the film isn't comming out until sometime in 2022. Since that's a really long time until it will likely be notable for recreation if it ever is. I doubt the production will be notable enough on its own between now and then. Adamant1 (talk) 13:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmm, I see your point. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discussion, and the number of sources. Production seems to be going along, so keeping the article for a few more months to see if the film is still being worked on and still scheduled for release probably makes the most sense. As of now it's an anticipated film in production with continually sourced updates, which seems a sound 'keep' to me. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Randy Kryn on this one. There are a good number of sources, production is moving forward, and the film is being worked on, meaning it's an anticipated film with various updates, meaning it should be kept. Historyday01 (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Amazing Maurice and His Educated Rodents#Adaptations, which already mentions this. The whole content of this article could be worked into that paragraph with no loss of information, and broken out into an article again at some appropriate later point. BD2412 T 02:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a merge. Maybe other people who voted deleted would also. If so, I'll change my vote. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also support a merge, as indicated in my rationale. The known content about this film can easily fit into a paragraph that would not overwhelm the other article. BOVINEBOY2008 11:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can definitely see Wikipedia users doing a search on this film and would love for them to find this well-referenced, well-written article. In my mind this piece adds value to the encyclopedia.--Concertmusic (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2020 (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.