Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coco (2017 film)

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. Sandstein 15:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coco (2017 film)

Note: This article has been redirected to a duplicate article Coco (2017 film) by the article's author. I have relocated the AfD tag to the target article.- Mr X 17:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Possible WP:CRYSTAL with a considerable degree of speculation and vagueness. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This movie has confirmed details as of yesterday including a director and final title so I believe it deserves its own page. Matt14451 (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See: WP:NFF. In order for an article to exist for a film, principal photography must be confirmed to have started. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFF. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Enough information about the film is known and therefore the article should stay.Matt14451 (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Matt... only one vote per editor. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL. The article can be resurrected when production starts. MarnetteD|Talk 18:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The production cycle has started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt14451 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matt you only get to vote once in any AFD and you have already done so in this one. MarnetteD|Talk 18:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily merge with List of Pixar films until enough information is valid for this to have a full-length article, noting that although the story where the production stage go as expected so that the film will be released in the fall of 2017 is a possible story of the future, so is the story where the film has production problems and its release date is pushed to a year like 2023 or 2024. Georgia guy (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge, failing Wikipedia:NFF. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is needed77.98.81.144 (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to director Lee Unkrich as one of his planned projects. It can be spoken of and sourced there as facts come forward. Undelete after filming has begun and only IF production then gets requisite coverage. Simply TOO SOON and so fails WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Merge to an appropriate article. List of Pixar films might be more stable, since directors sometimes get fired if production doesn't go according to plan. WP:NFF is not yet met, as principal photography has not been confirmed to have begun. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps more "stable", but a list is not the proper place for extensive merged quantatative information nor a suitable place where production information can be added and sourced as it comes forward. As he is sourcable as the slated director Lee Unkrich makes more sense for a place for forthcoming information until a speculation that he may not direct is somehow confirmed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Generally for films, the article is acceptable when principal shooting starts. Of course there is no such clear cut event for animation films. My assumption is that since animation films take a long time to create, the criteria should be adapted for such films. Hektor (talk) 07:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pixar Animation Studios FYI there is a criteria for animation, that the film be out of pre-production - work should have begun on the final animation and voiceovers that will actually be used in the film. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into the List of Pixar films. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 08:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect:Not enough information to warrant a separate article. Redirect to List of Pixar films until a decent more information is available. --Babar Suhail (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as a redirect somewhere seems reasonable, I still contend that no matter where the title may be redirected, information about his slated project can per policy be included and sourced within the article of director Lee Unkrich until a separate article on the film is warranted. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a confirmed film from a major studio, they've probably already started "filming" (layout animation and set/character design, not to mention voice recording), and if deleted, the article will just have to sit in a state of redlink limbo until it gets created again. Plus, it finally has a title instead of just "Untitled Dia De Los Muertos film". Dogman15 (talk) 01:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dogman. Production has likely been underway for years at this point, considering it's a CGI film, not live action. Anyone with knowledge of the production cycle of CGI films will get this. Therefore it actually passes WP:NFF. At the very least, it should be merged/redirected to List of Pixar films. Deleting would hurt the wiki. Also, why is there an open proposal to merge at the same time as this AfD? Shouldn't it be one or the other? True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 02:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if a release date is already set, then it is very much out of pre-production. As stated, CGI films take YEARS to create. At the very least merge, but don't delete. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A release date is set as stated in the article I think Matt14451 (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matt14451, what is needed is sourced confirmation. "In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced}. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only source I know is D23. There was a Coco poster presented with "Fall 2017" at the bottom. This is the image which is currently in the Infobox. The animation specialists can tell us when productions starts based on a release date of Fall 2017. As a comparison, Brad Bird told once that The Incredibles took four years to make. Hektor (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Speaking toward Disney's D23 Expo, Rotten Tomatoes reported "Disney Announces Coco and Gigantic for 2017/2018", and on August 21, NBC News reported "Cartoonist Lalo Alcaraz to Work On Pixar's Day of the Dead Film 'Coco'" that is "to work" not "has begun work". This would make it weak on WP:NFF... however Film School Rejects did report that while not much was shared at the D23, Pixar "debuted a quick test clip for Coco" and The Wrap reported "Disney-Pixar offer sneak peeks at films on their upcoming slates, including newly titled film Coco", so while I would agree that some type of animation prep-work is under way, is it enough to meet WP:NFF? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:09, 22 August 2015 (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.