Deletion of Godzilla (2012 film) (2nd nomination)

Comment: per . Articles about future projects don't need to exist at all, regardless of sourcing. Other venues are in the business of sorting and weighing rumors and gossip, Wikipedia is not. Unless and until  is met, there shouldn't be an article about this topic. We are ''not'' at the mercy of sources.  establishes a bare minimum guideline: no article which fails to meet it should be kept. That doesn't mean that every article that meets it should be kept, though. An article that meets  should only be kept if it is a reasonable thing to include, and speculative film projects that may never occur are not reasonable things to write Wikipedia articles about.&mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:NFF||WP:N||WP:N)

Comment: The IMDB change from 2012 to 2014 makes me weigh in on the rystal side of the argument. WHEN the film is eventually made and at least formally scheduled for release (and release dates often slide) an article could be warranted. Not yet
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C)

Comment: BUT, this article is '''not''' a film article and cannot be treated as one until principle filming begins.  As was brought up at the rticles_for_deletion/Godzilla (2012 film)|last AFD, the article requires reformatting, the infobox needs to be removed, and the article title needs to be be disambigged to Godzilla (2012 film project) until such time as filming begins, if ever.  While often debated, the SNG  does not strictly nor absolutely overrule |policy or overrule |other notability guidelines.  It was set in place to prevent Wikipedia being flooded by articles on unmade films... planned projects lacking |extensive coverage or |demonstrable notability, and as a Speed limiter|governor set to limit run-away crap article creation, it serves a valuable prurpose.  But it is NOT the only word nor final word. The final word is whether or not a topic has the enduring and in-depth coverage to be enough worthy of note to be in some way discussed.  See
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A||WP:NFF||WP:CBALL||WP:GNG||WP:GNG||WP:N)

Comment: A look around the net indicates this is still in development and even IMDB shows the date has slipped to 2014 so the article title is incorrect. There's no guarantee that any film that is only in development will ever actually be filmed and to stop articles like this existing |Wikipedia:Notability (films) states "Films that have not been confirmed by |reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should '''not''' have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date." There's no reason why this film should go against that
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFF||WP:RS)

Comment: As per the , which supercedes all other notability guidelines, this article topic has enough reliable sources to confer notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)