Deletion of Star Wars sequel trilogy

Comment: as an exemplary case of what  was designed to '''not''' discourage: the fact that Lucas has changed his stories plenty of times has reported many times in RS, demonstrating notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: per Khalfani_khaldun. The article seems sufficiently referenced with reliable third party sources. Also (and even though I know someone's gonna throw  up because of this) I find this little different from such unmade or cancelled films such as ''The Man Who Killed Don Quixote'', ''The Alien'', ''Godzilla vs. Frankenstein'', or ''Doc Savage: The Arch Enemy of Evil
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFF)

Comment: but editors are urged to consider reorganization of this article with the main Star Wars, possibility making an article specifically about the films from Star Wars#Feature Films and the content here, with Star Wars remaining as the franchise lead.  This ''passes''  and is sourced, but I'm not thrilled about it being talked about outside of the two other trilogies and thus the suggestion for reorganization
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: There is no reason at all why a proposed project would actually have to be made to be notable.  There are well-documented discussions about the possibility that such films would be made, and therefore there is no reason we cannot document the discussions.  The article meets all relevant standards: it passes all of , ,  and OT.  As  clearly states: "It ''is'' appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced."  That sentence could have been written with this article in mind
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:N||WP:OR||WP:NOT||WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Lucas originally described the original Star Wars trilogy as the middle trilogy of a nine-part story.  That he since changed his mind doesn't change the original notability of the sequel trilogy, and it is not  since the article is not dependent on whether or not the sequel actually ever gets made.  If one were to bother to go back to hard copy sources from the late 70s and early 80s, rather than just rely on Google, they would certainly find information on Lucas' (admittedly limited) description of the sequel
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: verifiable, sourced to reliable sources, no more a synthesis than any other article and hardly breaching , since this article is about what has been said, not what will be said.  Yes, there's an argument that this shouldn't be important, but that's another argument that smacks of POV. I can't see this as being guilty of UNDUE, since this has been reported upon by the BBC
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: and suggest '''merge''', but that is neither here nor there The notability requirement's purpose is to make sure that there ''are'' enough reliable sources to talk about the article. Those reliable sources most definitely exist; I see the Atlantic Monthly and Time Magazine among the sources. The print sources especially make it clear that this is not just a  issue
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: per . In the words of the article itself, "Lucasfilm and George Lucas have for many years denied plans of making a sequel trilogy, insisting that Star Wars was meant to be a six-part series". Whether the article has 14 citations or 400, all it can ever add up to is vague speculation stitched together from here and there. Heck, half of the article seems to be quotes from George Lucas himself insisting that there is no third trilogy. There's no subject here to write about
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTHESIS)

Comment: per above. This isn't a case of , it's a sufficiently referenced article on an extremely notable series. Even if they never exist, they're notable enough (and sourced well enough) to have an entry detailing them and why they're not actally being made
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: From : ''"It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects '''or''' whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced."'' It has enough references to pass both that, and . Even if it does have bits of trivia, it's sourced enough to not fail , and even if it were , it's not unreasonable to say that the Star Wars fan base is big enough that (contrary to the essay), content is of importance ''to a large'' population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. ''Update: I should probably point out that the main reason I'm opposed to just merging to Star Wars is because that article is too long as it is, and leaving this one separate makes it easier than merging and having to trim/fork off something else
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:N||WP:OR||WP:FANCRUFT)