Deletion of The Avengers (2012 film)

Comment: While the film fails , it also clearly passes , especially with all the post Comic-Con coverage.  SNGs like NFF do not take precedence over the GNG
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFF||WP:GNG)

Comment: There was just a front page story on this film on USATODAY yesterday (no link at the moment, apologies). There's quite frankly more than enough inofrmation at the moment that leaving it in the parent article would become unwieldy. Just because it doesn't meet  doesn't mean it hasn't earned its own article by now
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFF)

Comment: As even more than the 37 sources on the article are added, meeting  through coverage of its production will become an irrefutable slam-dunk.  In incubation the article can grow and be improved, and then be reviewed before return to mainspace.  And it must be clarified for those that erroneously think NFF automatically means we can naver have articles on unmade films: We do have them... determined as |notable enough for Wikipedia, and allowed on a case-by-case basis, for WP:NF (and its subsection ) begin with the very basic instruction "''As with all subjects, a film should satisfy the general notability guideline.''"  Wikipedia does indeed allow and appreciate articles on films not yet made and for films that have been cancelled if they have coverage that meets ... which this one certainly does in spades
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFF||WP:GNG||WP:GNG)

Comment: In addition to  there is also  to take into consideration; this article contains far too much information to fit into the subsection of another article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:SS)

Comment: for the time being.While the film project is notable, has received media coverage, that coverage has been reliable and sourceable, with GNG we are looking a ''guideline''. And there are two aspects of that guideline that are a bit nagging. First is "''independent of the subject''". At this point all of the information, in some form or another, is directly attributable to those with a vested interest in the project. We can dress it up as using/citing other reporting on what Marvel and Paramount have said or done but that is creating a news report or overview, not necessarily an encyclopedia article. Second is "presumed to satisfy". Since we are looking at a guideline, that presumption should take into account other guidelines and large consensus that deal with aspects of or could impact the potential article. In this case there are at least two other strong guidelines involved. The article, as structured, ''does'' but up against the guideline that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It presents the film as a done deal with a guaranteed release date. As has been well pointed out by others above neither of these things are the case. The project may fold before principle filming commences, the cast may change, the director may change, delays may happen. From that stand point the article would at the least need to be moved and the infobox and some section headers tweaked to reflect this is not yet a film. And that bring in the guidelines that the Film Project uses in maintaining and building articles. Those guidelines hold that a full article wait for principle photography starts since this makes it more likely that the film will be completed and released.Given that, it is reasonable to house the information somewhere other than its own article if possible. Since the logical place for this to be is Avengers (comics) in other media and not Avengers (comics), compression of the information is less of a problem. By design the IOM article was split off to allow for larger sections dealing with the adaptation of the comic in other media. In the cases where the adaptations have been aired, published, or released the IOM uses a short summary and points to the larger articles. While the material on the film project may need a slight compression, it would not create a case of unwieldiness or |undue weight to have it in the IOM until principle photography begins
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: I advise those that are commenting on  and  to consider a few things
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:NFF)

Comment: per . The basic criteria for notability are met. We do not exclude articles based on assumptions about whether the movie will be made or not as long as they satisfy the general notability guideline, which this movie does. You need far more urgent reasons to ignore the general notability guideline and delete anyway (usually legal reasons or simular issues
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per  and the amount of coverage this has already received
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Given the state of the project I would normally favour a merge to Avengers (comics) in other media#Marvel Studios films but given the scale of the coverage and the focus of the article I can't really say that such a merge is really necessary or even advisable.   is not a rigid rule designed to exclude from Wikipedia any and all coverage of films in pre-production but rather a flexible guideline intended to encourage editors to channel their energies in productive directions rather than spend great deals of time trying to dig up sources or info about projects that are in too early a stage of development to have a well-sourced article.  If it can be shown, as it has been here in my opinion, that a project would be clearly notable even if it died and all production stopped today than a stand alone article is not clearly inappropriate
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFF)

Comment: per  and Erik/TriipleThreat/Cliff/etc - no guarantee of release, not enough significant coverage to warrant a stand alone article, and already best covered in the main article with context
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFF)