Deletion of Star Trek 2 (2013 film)

Comment: The important thing to note here is this: though the film does not meet the criteria laid forth at , this particular film is of such a high profile and of such eager anticipation that it will become notable no matter what happens.  Either it is made, and becomes notable thusly, or it is derailed in some catastrophic fashion and becomes notable through that route (much as ''The Man Who Killed Don Quixote'' did
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFF)

Comment: This is ridiculous. We've had this tango twice before. ''The Lone Ranger'' i understood because it got shelved soon afterward. This is a well-sourced and well-discussed film. There is a filming date cited in the article, which is in two months. There is a bounty of sources that confirm this film is happening. You constantly cite . That is for films that are announced and hasn't got alot of news stories that aid in it's notability. If i created this article when it was first announced for release in 2012, yea, i would have understood why you would redirect it. But now, they've begun casting rumours, they're scouting locations, and there are new stories on the film each day. I spent two hours digging deep through clusters of stories about this project, so this meets . It's notable. Just look at sources like this http://www.filmjunk.com/2011/11/24/star-trek-sequel-gets-a-new-release-date-3d-confirmed/, now why would they be announcing what format of filming they would use if there was a slight possibility this wouldn't happen
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFF||WP:GNG)

Comment: Why does everyone choose to ignore ?  Maybe this policy needs to be rewritten in order to accommodate speculative articles like this one.  And why not  while we're at it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFF||WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: or with good faith '''Incubate''' or '''Userfy'''. While the sub-SNG  is sometimes seen to conflict with policy , the policy itself '''does''' allow properly sourced discussion of events that have not yet occured... even planned films. And as long as we have proper sourcing, we can find always find place for contextual information, even if not in a separate article. I believe that at a minimum, we can allow the article to be userfied or incubated out of respect to NFF and the willingness shown by editors to continue improving the article. After which we can then without prejudice set a redirect of the title to a parent topic elsewhere where the unmade film might be discussed in context to the film franchise... such as either the suggested Star Trek (film series)#Reboot or at Star Trek (film series)#Films and allow its return to mainspace when principal filmming is more imminent. Seems a reasonable compromise that meets both policy and guideline without rewriting either or bending either into pretzels. Looks like we'll have a very short wait
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFF||WP:FUTURE)

Comment: Look, the topic has plenty of coverage. The fight over "film" vs "film project" belongs in an RfC, not an AfD.  There's no question in my mind that the ''topic'' meets the  for a standalone article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per . Alternatives to deletion, like merging to the first movie's page, exist. These should have been discussed at the talk page before the deletion was considered
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)