Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spike and Suzy: The Texas Rangers


 * 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. Defaults to keep Fritzpoll (talk) 11:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Spike and Suzy: The Texas Rangers

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No notability asserted, no citable references. Article has existed for more than 18 months with little substantial change, and no evidence that film ever went into production, thus likely failing future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that production has begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Film is slated to be released in June 2009 (see bottom of http://www.bobetbobette.be/ -- in French). English version of the film is going to be called Luke & Lucie - The Texas Rangers according to the home page of the production company: http://www.cotoon-studio.com/films-bob-bobette-EN.php
 * Just because the release has been delayed does not mean that it never went into production.
 * Film is notable for being Belgium's first feature length computer-animated film. Krikke (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No IMDb entry for any of "Bob & Bobette", "Spike and Suzy" nor "Luke & Lucie". The official website listed in the article contains nothing but the disclaimer "Coming soon !". Extensive Google searches for any of the above search terms come up with no reliable hits that could verify that principal photography has started on this film. Per WP:NFF: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please have a look at http://www.flanders-image.com/index.php?col=/product&doc=1225&title=Bob%20&%20Bobette:%20The%20Texas%20Rangers. This is a Flanders government website that provides information on films that the Flemish Government funds or helps fund. Under "detailed information" on the right, the first thing it says is that the film is in production. I think this website qualifies as a reliable source. If both the Flemish Government and the production company state this film is coming out in 2009, and a trailer is available to view online, I think it is pretty obvious that this film and its release date are legit.
 * Why delete this entry now when it will just have to be recreated in four months? Krikke (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There's still no proof of comencement of principal photography. That a film is in production does not guarantee that principal photography has begun. This is the crux of the issue when it comes to passing the threshold of WP:NFF. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Commencement of principal photography" is a term that doesn't apply to this film, as it is a computer-generated animated film. There is no principal photography. There was no principal photography on WALL-E either. Does that mean the article on WALL-E should be removed? The fact that there is a trailer and at least 20 different stills is evidence that production has begun. The stills and the film trailer indicate that at least portions of this film have been completed, otherwise there would be no stills or trailer. I am clearly not going to be able to find a website that states that "principal photography on Spike and Suzy: The Texas Rangers has commenced." You are not going to find a similar statement for Pixar's next animated film either. Krikke (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Teaser trailer: http://www.skyline-entertainment.be/skyline/showreel_en.php?ss=a&an=up&flv=susenwis_teaser. The line of text at the end is Dutch for "Summer 2009 in theatres".


 * I would not consider a a trailer to be a reliable source since trailers are usually self-published. As far as the term "commencement of principal photography" not applying to animated films, we can easily substitute the term "production of the animated image" (as per this document of the New Zealand government) so the WP:NFF can be taken to say "[Animated] films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced production of the animated image should not have their own articles." With all of the links you have provided so far, we still have no confirmation by reliable sources that production of the animated image has commenced. Still shots and teaser trailers could have been produced independently and it's possible that nothing else of the film exists other than those trailers and still shots. I'm not saying that's the case but we really are missing any reliable sources. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have found the new official sites for the film: one in English, one in French, one in Dutch (see article). It is obvious that this film going to be released in Belgium on June 17, 2009. I don't know what further proof you need. Krikke (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree that if it is Belgium's first feature length computer-animated film, that makes it notable. And since it has already received funding, and there is some reasonable proof that it has been completed, it probably exist.   D r e a m Focus  11:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 19:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep due to my good faith acceptance of User:Krikke translations of available sources. Being officially announced by a government source that the film will be released in June kinda pushes the WP:NFF bar for me. If it was industry hype, I could disregard it.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I must admit that I really appreciate Krikke's efforts to dig up and translate available sources. However, the problem that I'm experiencing is that I can't really accept any of those sources as reliable. Official sites are usually promotional (as are the sites for this film) and promotional sites are automatically not neutral. Government websites would usually pass my threshold of a reliable source except in the case where the government is actively involved in financing and promoting the film, such as this particular film. This, in my opinion, disqualifies the Flemish government as a "third-party" since they are directly involved in the making of this film. Besides the promotional sites by the filmmakers and a quasi-promotional entry on the website of the financier (the Flemish government), we have no other sources to indicate anything about the status of this film. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well... in it being "Belgium's first feature length computer-animated film", it has notability. And the government being involved in proudly creating this first for their film industry kind of underscores that notability. What we need here is more International input, as more non-English sources may certainly exist.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing notabiliy, I agree that notability exists. I'm arguing complete lack of reliable sources proving the film can pass WP:NFF. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Which unfortunately is a sometimes fatal flaw (to articles) of the guidelines of enwiki as described per WP:NONENG. All one can hope for in curbing a systemic bias is that editors who are able to research these non-English sources do so. I do appreciate your granting tnat WP:N exists. All we need to now is encourage those souces get added to the article.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe we're not on the same page here. I'm not trying to discredit any foreign language sources, as long as they're reliable, and I'm not looking for English sources to prove notability. In any language, the subject of this article suffers from a chronic lack of a reliable source that proves it ever made past the planning stages and it into full production. The point of WP:NFF is to differentiate between planned films and films that have a high probability of being completed and released and this can usually be predicted by proving whether or not principal photography (or the above described equivalent for animated films) has commenced; this is the point of no return for most financiers and films that have made it to this stage are likely to be completed. If we had a single reliable source unconnected to the producers, film-makers or the government that confirms something about the production (rather than just an estimated release date and promotional trailers), the film would pass WP:NFF and qould deserve its own article. But we don't so it doesn't. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * More souces should certainly be translated and added to meet your concerns, but I am now quite satisfied that the article meets the criteria of WP:NFF in that "filming" has commenced and that the film and its filmmakers are getting coverage. What English sources could I find toward the filmmakers and their film? Animation World Network, Animation Europe,Flanders Animation, CG Channel, 3DM3, Flanders Image, which tend to indicate notability. What non-English sources in the same search? Ah-hah... lots, lots more: Les Film d'Animation Avenir, Leusderkrant, Arcaplex, Le Pole, Movie Motion, 3DHype, Score Magazine, Dreaming Moon, Wallywood, Movie Machine, 3DVF, and more.... but I cannot read any of them. However, a few of these sources seem rather in-depth, and several seem to indicate that film creation is definitely underway. The volume of these non-English souces seems to tickle a non-English GNG. Know any translators of French, Dutch, Flemish, and German? They could be of great help with these.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is a summary of the above sources in order in which they were listed above:
 * Animation World Network article says of the project only the following: "Lux Animation is also working on a 3-D CG project, SPIKE AND SUZY: TEXAS DEVILS directed by Wim Bien and Mark Mertens" and is dated May 15, 2008. "Is working" does not mean principal photography, or its equivalent, has begun; it may only mean negotiating or planning.
 * When I tell someone I am "working" in the garden, it does not mean I am negotiating or planning. It means I am out there removing weeds. The translation to English of the source may have been garbled. But I am not advocating the limited English sources. Only offered in agreement with you that they are "limited".
 * Animation Europe also says nothing of principal photography. It does mention the release date of "winter 2009" and cites http://www.tvskyline.com as a source which in turn claims "summer 2009" as a release date.
 * No disagreement. Transalations problems at their end.
 * Flanders Animation states this of the production stage of the film: "First, though, they need to finish The Texas Rangers in time for its Christmas release - and there is no time to spare". The article is dated Summer 2008 and clearly alludes to Christmas of 2008 as a slated release date.
 * Simply an earlier article alluding to a hoped-for date. Later articles modified this "hope".
 * CG Channel contains no information other than a single sentence: "Luke and Lucy is a new CG Animated Featured Film co-directed by Wim Bien & Mark Mertens". No dates or confirmation of the stage of prosuction.
 * Agreed. Simply another "limited" English source.
 * 3DM3 is a forum and connot be possible considered a reliable source for absolutely anything.
 * Yes, a forum. Not even suggesting it be used as a source. Simply being "offered" to perhaps pint in which direction further research might be taken.
 * Flanders Image gives no information other than unspecifically saying that the film is "in production" (what stage of production?) and that the release date is 2009.
 * Again, only another offering of the limitations of available English sources.
 * You listed these sources and followed it up with your opinion that they "tend to indicate notability". I guess you and I are at an impasse because I seem to be having a hard time communicating that I have no issues with the film's notability; you really don't need to prove it to me. I have an issue with reliability of sources that have no solid information on the stage of the film's production and whose estimated release dates have been in constant shift. Basically, the project is notable but there is no proof of the film's progression being at a stage acceptable by WP:NFF. Had we had this discussion last summer, I might have been told "the film will be released this Christmas as per this". Not much is different right now. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No impasse, as we are in agreement at to its notability. It would seem then that since that more important issue of notability is resolved, the article be "kept" and so tagged for expansion and soucing... a matter for WP:CLEANUP. Yes? And a discussion of sources can then take place on the article's talk page?
 * However, one last comment before I retire from this discussion and leave it to a closing Admin... since several of the non-English sources DO seem to be quite in-depth, i remembered Babblefish. Dreaming Moon] and Le Film d'Animation Avenir have text and actual images of the film. Using Yahoo babblefish, the text shows the film as IN Production, and far past the "negotiating or planning" stage. Using Babblefish (yikes) to tranlate the text of the article at Leusderkrant, I learned the film 's voiceover work is going on now through March 6. Most rewarding toward indicating the film's state ofproduction, is a Babblefish translation of Movie Machine which announces the cast, states that the film "has been" directed (past tense) by Mertens and Wim Bien, announces that voice work IS taking place (confirming the Leusderkrant information), and gives an in-depth storyline as opposed to a brief synopsis. These may be what you wish. I invite you to Babblefish them yourself... and hold your laughter at the rough job it does.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And when I get home from work this evening, and if no one else has done so, I will myself source the article and bring it line with film MOS.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per Dream Focus and Schmidt. EagleFan (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The article has now been expanded, and sourced to show that voice overs for the film are in now underway.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per MichaelQSchmidt's contributions to the article. Ikip (talk) 08:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as vapourware film. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 25 February 2009 (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.