Deletion of Saw VI (2nd nomination)

Comment: and '''|salt again''' — the sources in the article are not the least reliable (the one is a deadlink). In other words, this is |crystalballery at its finest. I think this teaches us not to trust repeatedly deleted articles as a redirect, as they will very easily be reverted and/or recreated
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Protection policy (WP:SALT||WP:CBALL)

Comment: per , but preferably '''speedy delete''' per  G4 (if possible). Why was protection lifted from this page
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFF||WP:CSD)

Comment: based upon the connection to a television series being aired on a national network; production announcement of Saw VI can be verified via that source (filming does not necessarily have to have begun). The second source is a blog and blogs aren't allowed, so this should be replaced with a Wikipedia-recognized media source ASAP. But right now the VH1 connection is enough to keep this alive and to avoid CRYSTAL. However, I have no predjudice against renomination (or someone going  and merging) should production of Saw VI (or the Scream Queens TV series) be cancelled
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:BOLD)

Comment: The article fails  directly.  Now, NFF, being a guideline and not a policy, is not ironclad.  I can see notability conferred by a prominent TV show being sufficient to allow for an article on an unproduced film.  Why delete, then?  Because I don't see evidence that ''Scream Queens'' is itself notable, or that the Saw VI connection will be significant
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFF)

Comment: To the editors who are voting "keep", the |notability guidelines for future films stipulates to creating an article when filming has begun.  The mood is overly optimistic -- because people are writing a film does not at all mean that there ''will'' be a film.  Even the most desired projects do not make it to production, a notable example being ''Spider-Man 4'' (which redirects to Spider-Man (film series)#Future).  It is easy enough to develop a "Future" section on the film series article and export it to a stand-alone article once filming begins.  It cannot be absolutely guaranteed without a doubt that this film will take place, and redirecting is a viable option to compensate for that
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFF)

Comment: to Saw V#Sequel or Saw (film series)#Future development since |principal photography has not yet begun: The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film can be included in articles about its subject material.  Protecting the redirect temporarily sounds like a good idea, as discussed above
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFF)

Comment: and here's why: No-one is disputing that ''Saw VI'' is highly likely to happen. But the point is that it's not ''100% likely''. It might seem like a petty distinction to make, but without that distinction provided by |the notability guideline for future films, we'd have stubby articles on all kinds of films that seemed to many reasonable people highly notable and likely at the time, but which never went ahead for whatever reason. I'm thinking of Spielberg's ''Steven Spielberg#Upcoming projects|Lincoln'', which has been happening "next year" for the last four years, ''White Jazz (film)|White Jazz'', Oliver Stone's ''Pinkville'' (which got as far as having its sets built), ''Justice League (film)|Justice League'' (fully cast and ready to film, the writers' strike put an end to that one), ''Silver Surfer (film)|Silver Surfer'' (written, but pulled at the last minute due to the slightly disappointing box office of ''Fantastic Four 2|F42''). All of these were announced, given tentative release schedules, etc. and all were abandoned or postponed. Just look at how many productions were postponed, even shelved indefinitely, because of the 2007-2008 Writers Guild of America strike. Even ''Jurassic Park IV'', part of one of the most lucrative film franchises of recent years, and which most people would consider a no-brainer for a speedy greenlight, was supposed to be ''released'' in 2005 (and consider this: if Wikipedia had been around in the 1990s, without the guideline, we'd have had seven or eight different articles on ''Superman film series#Superman V|Superman V'' by now). The guideline isn't there to piss anyone off, I support it even though I've had articles of my own fall under its sword. That's because it's there for good, practical reasons. Budget, scripting and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. We've seen so many projects fall by the wayside at the last minute, especially in the current climate, that employing the guideline as strictly as we can is the only way of ensuring that Wikipedia doesn't get clogged with stub articles about films which were never made and thus would ultimately fail the |general notability guideline. There's a very good reason we have an article on development hell: because films get stuck in it all the time. In accordance with the guideline, the article can be recreated without prejudice if and when principal photography is finally confirmed to have begun. For now, any verifiable information should sit nicely at Saw (film series)#Future development or Saw V#Sequel. I would urge fans of the series not to consider whether the film "deserves" an article, but instead to consider what's best for the readers of these articles. With what little information is available about ''Saw VI'' at present (naturally, because filming hasn't started), surely the best place for information on it is in the context of the other films in the series
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFF||WP:N)

Comment: Per , care to explain why? &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:JUSTAVOTE)

Comment: This is a case where the it may make sense to ignore the letter of the guideline and keep the article even though production hasn't started but I remain reluctant to give it the go just yet.  Plenty of films make it to this stage (written script, signed director and main cast) and then fall through.  Thus  insistence on a strict application of .  In this case, we're right on the edge, and I'd rather wait for the beginning of filming (or at least better sources)before going with a full blown article rather than a redirect to Saw (film series.  There's certainly material to cover, but I think that it is better in the main series article for the next few weeks/months
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFF||WP:CRYSTAL)