Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anubis (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 redirect to The_Anubis_Tapestry. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Anubis (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Was deprodded without rationale. Uncited article, which appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Does not meet WP:FILM  Onel 5969  TT me 04:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: I initially thought that this was a hoax, but Variety did report on the books getting optioned. There's also this bit from 2014, which looks to be a press release. However other than that, there's nothing out there to show that this project is really active. Now as far as the cast list goes, that seems to be a hoax, as I can't find anything to show that any of these actors have been signed to the film. Some of them are very well known people (James Franco, Guillermo del Toro) and others are pretty well known otherwise, so it's really unlikely that there would be no coverage of them signing to a film. I mean, del Toro commands a great deal of press based only on whispers, after all. I think that this is at best WP:TOOSOON. This could probably be sent to draft or userspace if someone wanted to incubate it for a while, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Blue Sky Studios - I added references and removed trivia. However, it has not received any coverage since 2013. The cast seems entirely speculative or was added by someone with inside info - there is no coverage whatsoever about who is starring, and these are some big names. It's certainly a notable film backed by big studios, but too soon. It remains a plausible search term. Once it's updated the article can be resurrected from the redirect. —Мандичка YO 😜 04:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * if we are going to redirect anywhere surely it should be The_Anubis_Tapestry. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to The_Anubis_Tapestry as pointed out. There's nearly as much information there already as in our article, missing just the distributor (parent company of the studio) and the date change. Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to The_Anubis_Tapestry. If the film becomes notable in itself upon distribution, it can be recreated and anything in the page history is preserved. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2016 (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.