Deletion of Bond 23 (second nomination)

Comment: By all means compliant with , however, see , rule 1. It is |OR and not compliant with 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:CBALL||WP:OR||WP:V)

Comment: Article has at least 2 reputable sources, production of Bond 23 has been confirmed previously. Details on Bond 22 were announced prior to production of Bond 21 (Casino Royale). If all it was was idle speculation I'd say it was premature, but with sources it does not violate . Previous AFD doesn't count because at that time such an article ''was'' premature. But if there is already reputable media coverage for Bond 23, then it is no longer premature to begin an article on this
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: all verifiable speculation to James Bond (films) in a Future section.  Whether this film will enter production or not is not an argument to make here, and it unfortunately appears that this is the case.  This article will be underdeveloped for a long time, considering that ''Bond 22'' has not even ''entered'' production.  Per |notability guidelines for films, it is not appropriate to create articles about films until they enter production, and this film is ''far'' from being produced.  If this article is kept (since AfDs are not the best way to go to address preliminary information about future films), I will be requesting for a merge discussion based on the arguments I've presented, but in a more detailed manner
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NF)

Comment: The Bond franchise is somewhat different from your typical D-Hell film. It's all but certain to get made, many of the particulars are known well in advance, and it receives plenty of ongoing publicity. They really do start planning 23 while making 21. Yeah, , but I think this is the exception that proves |the rule, the one that shows why it's just "almost always
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: viable content to James Bond (films) as per Erik and Bignole's comments. The |film notability guidelines specifically denote that no films are to have articles until shooting has been confirmed to have commenced, and all relevant content is to remain in the article about the source material until that point. The guideline is unambiguous, easy to implement, and requires no deletion of content, nor does it make any judgment in any respect as to the likelihood of the article eventually meeting the requirements. Please respect the guidelines - this was hammered out relatively recently, but with extensive discussion before, during, and after, and was announced in every normal venue to the Wikipedia community. Thank you
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NF)

Comment: I've read both sources and they both consist of rumors and things that may happen someday so this article falls afoul of Wikipedia is not a |crystal ball
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: there is no viable reason to keep this article. The only real world content is Craig's salary, which can easily be stated on Bond 22. Nothing says this fill '''WILL''' get made, nor does it say anything about '''WHEN''' it will. It could be 5+ years before they get this out. There is no reason to have an article that will just be home to tons of |OR and speculation and other vandalism. A studio saying "we're going to make a film" doesn't mean the film will get made. Warner Brothers said that for 20 years with Superman, and for half that long with Batman. Spider-Man had 20 years of "it's coming" before it finally got made. Talk is cheap, and doesn't negate CRYSTAL. There is no ironclad proof of when this film will get made, let alone released. No reason to jump the gun
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)