Deletion of Near future in film

Comment: but '''rename''' to 2010s in film. "Near future in film" is not a good name for an encyclopedic article. This article was originally renamed from 2009 in film because it contained information about 2010, while 2010 in film was originally deleted in 2005, and was protected from recreation from early 2007 until May 2008 when it was created as a redirect to this article. As the content for each individual year grows, per  it should split to 2010 in film, 2011 in film, etc. when there is enough verifiable information for each year. Until then the year articles should be redirected to the decade article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article size (WP:SIZE)

Comment: passes  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:V)

Comment: Obviously passes  because the information is verifiable and sources are provided.  Furthermore  explicitly allows for the possibility of discussing forthcoming movies and so the nomination is quite misleading
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Although the article's title does invite misinterpretation of . Shouldn't it be ''2009-2015 in film'' or something
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Doesn't qualify as unverified speculation because the entries in the article are, for the most part, reliably sourced, being either articles featuring statements from actors, directors, producers, or studios regarding upcoming projects, or entries from reliable sources derived from said articles.  That said, the intent of the article is best served by replacing the comingsoon.net sources with sources more informative and specific, because, while comingsoon.net is reliable, it is not a primary source, and in itself serves the same function as this wikipedia article.  So, instead of having  the cominsoon.net entry for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, it would be more appropriate to reference, for example, a news article about how the stars are signed on to produce said movie.  rystal also implicitly allows articles on future releases of movies by warning editors to avoid advertising or unverified claims.  Also, all the films listed are in either production or development at some level, and therefore are not only considered future events, but ongoing projects.  And, finally, given that individual articles on planned movies, assuming that there are reliable sources in which to find information on those movies, are considered valid topics, a topic that functions as a list of said movies, functioning to paint a picture of hollywood production in general in the near future, should also be considered valid
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C)