Deletion of Star Wars Episode VII (2nd nomination)

Comment: until more detailed information about the film becomes known, per concepts like 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:TenPoundHammer's Law (WP:HAMMER)

Comment: I did some studying on  and Wikipedia:Notability (films)|WP:NFF. I still do not understand how this Article can be breaching any point in that policy. Although the Article has not begun shooting, it is reliable enough and there are high hopes that it is scheduled to happen as comfirmed by sources. I do not understand about  though
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:HAMMER)

Comment: I recently expanded the article.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Wars_Episode_VII&diff=521341632&oldid=521287782 The article has most of the info on the topic presently available. The article development likely will follow the headings in Template:Filmmaking. Right now, the topic only has Development information (the very first film making step). I added the Green-light history, which is interesting on how Lucas adhered to a no Episode VII rule from 2002 to as late as Jan 2012 and the fans overtime thought otherwise. There is some film treatment info in the article. Film finance obviously will come from Disney, but more detail on that and Film budgeting probably will be release shortly. The announcement of Episode VII was covered world-wide and all those reporters are going to be diging out information as quick as they can, which means the article is going to grow rather quickly from that source information. At the moment, the Wikipedia article has most of the information available on the topic and, no doubt, is the most comprehensive anywhere. The topic meets , so it seems reasonable to keep to allow it to expand
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Fails part 5 of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: The fact that this landed at AfD is surprising. While it may be brushing  a bit, it's obviously encyclopedic content
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTALBALL)

Comment: or '''Delete''' This is simple, it isn't about whether or not it's notable, it obviously is (IMO), but until "confirmed by Wikipedia:RS|reliable sources to have commenced principal photography" it fails . It isn't about the amount of information available, nor the number of news stories about the development, until they start shooting there aren't concrete grounds for an article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFF)

Comment: The issue here is whether this topic has received |significant coverage of sources independent of the subject.  Clearly, the article is well-sourced and a Googe News Search turns up over 40,000(!) sources.https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=%22Star+Wars%22+%22Episode+7%22+OR+%22Episode+VII%22+-wikipedia&oq=%22Star+Wars%22+%22Episode+7%22+OR+%22Episode+VII%22+-wikipedia&gs_l=news-cc.3..43j43i400.1486.1486.0.1998.1.1.0.0.0.0.48.48.1.1.0...0.0...1ac.1.SJQ5QvzjJLo  Clearly, this article easily passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:GNG)

Comment: it's already notable enough simply for the nature of its envisioning (is that a word?) it's inception is a very notable topic in the context of the film series, in the context of LucasFilm, Disney, Lucas himself, and so on, and I think it's stand-alone enough to bypass . Can be edited to remove content problems though
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INHERIT)

Comment: I would like to point out one thing here. People keep talking about notability guidelines...this subject clearly meets notability. I don't see how that can be in dispute. With that being said, I continue to support my decision of '''redirect,''' because there is a precedence of other movie sequel articles being changed to redirects or being created as redirects. Examples of this start with the AfD for Star Trek into Darkness in 2009 (see previous comment). Iron Man 3 was created as a redirect in 2009 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iron_Man_3&oldid=279789186 Link), then redirected again after a user tried to make it it's own article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iron_Man_3&direction=next&oldid=362843292 Link). The Iron Man 3 article only started being developed in 2011. When The Avengers movie article was created, it was first created as a redirect in 2009 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Avengers_(2012_film)&oldid=279326402 Link), and then developed as an article in 2010. Simply put,  is not a good enough reason to keep the article as is. It should be redirected like these other major movies had been, under the basis of Wikipedia:Notability (films)|WP:NFF
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: to Star Wars sequel trilogy. Who knows what will happen in three years? It might be canceled. Not saying I want it to, since I love Star Wars, but you never know. Also, why are people not heeding 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ATA)

Comment: per . That there are many fanboys is just a reason to be extra observant of the guidelines
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Per Wikipedia:Notability (films)|WP:NFF, there's no reason for this article to exist separately from Star Wars sequel trilogy. Per , simply because the article will eventually be quite substantial does not mean it should exist separately now. I do believe that the article meets notability guidelines, but that's not enough for me to support keeping the article as is. I also believe this is very similar to the situation involving the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek XII|AfD for Star Trek XII which resulted in a redirect
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:TenPoundHammer's Law (WP:HAMMER)

Comment: where its already mentioned there. Can't anyone understand ,  and ?? It's obvious this doesn't belong. '''Principal photography has not even commenced''', for goodness sake! Only the announcement of an ''idea'' was mentioned and who knows, it could never really come into fruition. Things are still very uncertain. Guidelines are there for a reason
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTALBALL||WP:TOOSOON||WP:NFF)

Comment: per GDallimore, Wikipedia:Notability (films)|WP:NFF, etc. There is a tendency to jump the gun and create articles the moment some future thing is announced, but |Wikipedia is not the news and |we can afford to wait until there is a sufficient amount of things to be said about the thing. At this point all there's been is the announcement that a 7th SW film is "in the very early planning stages" or whatever. Many will of course say that the film is very likely to be made and thus coverage will keep coming in, but notability is based on what coverage exists ''now'', not at some vague point in the future
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:DEADLINE)

Comment: Can easily be covered at Star Wars sequel trilogy until it becomes a reality and notable per Wikipedia:Notability (films)|WP:NFF and .  Fanboys are the bane of Wikipedia sometimes.  Look at some of the arguments for "keep" above that completely fail to take into account the well-established guidelines. "It will be a huge page by 2015".  Yeah - that's 2015.  Anything can happen between now and then
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Per . Filming has not begun and there is no such thing as a "sure thing" in film. Who knows what might happen between now and when production starts
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFF)

Comment: My love for Star Wars aside, I think this article is a bit premature and it should be redirected to Star Wars sequel trilogy per Wikipedia:Notability (films)|WP:NFF and . We don't know what is going to happen in regards to the movie. As an example, one of my favorite movies Beetlejuice was supposed to have a sequel but that idea ended up being discarded in the late 90s (though there are current plans now for a sequel with a different writer, etc
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

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

Comment: The article underwent drastic changes within the last four days of being nominated (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Wars_Episode_VII&diff=521347771&oldid=520659668 diff from then to now), so most "delete" / "redirect" !votes are no longer valid.  is not applicable because the policy in question clearly allows articles about future events "if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." So the question is merely whether the subject is notable:  is, as pointed out above, only a guideline which (per hatnote) should be "treated with common sense" and "occasional exceptions may apply". This is imho a case where such an exception applies because of the high-profile nature of the subject and the distributor there is only a very very small chance that this film is not made. Plus, the subject does not have to meet  when it meets , which it does: There are (at this time) 24 sources in the article, all of them reliable, secondary sources that cover the subject explicitly. Regards
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:NFF||WP:NFF||WP:GNG)

Comment: It can be comfirmed to not be a faux like the previous discussion on this Article. No pranks detected; Wikipedia guidelines are still being followed at least adequately; then the Article is fine and even able to grow to even a eatured Article|featured article in the future or as a ood Articles|Good Article as happened with Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace|these Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones|three Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith|articles
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Non-free content (WP:F||WP:G)

Comment: Clearly goes against  point 5. It's two years away.. the setting, plot, cast, etc are all speculation. Not worth trying to maintain until filming starts and solid details have been released. Until then, this is unencycolpedic fan-based theorising. Simply needs a mention as "upcoming", nothing else is notable
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:FUTURE)

Comment: Why was this even nominated? There are reliable sources and is well documented. Plus, this is Star Wars, doesn't  apply? :p
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: The topic meets , as it has gained sufficiently significant coverage, and that isn't likely to diminish in the next few weeks, thus satisfying the "over a period of time" requirement
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Wikipedia:Notability (films)|WP:NFF is quite clear on this and there are not enough independent sources on different aspects of this particular production per  to override the guideline
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: there are enough sources now to indicate that it passes  and the amount of popular interest is such that its creation will be followed closely.  Even if it eventually implodes or is canceled, the cancelation itself will be notable.  This is Star Wars, a major part of English language popular culture.  I think that we can |use common sense to see that this will be highly followed and notable, the Wikipedia:Notability (films)|FF guideline notwithstanding
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:UCS)

Comment: I'm fine with  as long as you can justify it. Read ?. Tell me why this article is in Wikipedia's best interest and I'll say "Okay, now we can ignore the rules." But nobody is doing that, they're bickering over whether we should follow  or whether the  trumps it. Most of the keep arguments revolve around , , , and of course, #CRYSTAL. You can't just say Star Wars VII is like the Olympics and claim that makes it pass , because it's not actually all that much like the Olympics. So if you think it passes , then tell us how. And don't say that it's definitely going to happen and is totally notable just because Disney has already spent $4bil on it, because that tells me nothing other than that you haven't read  and you probably should.  In my opinion  is an excellent guideline to follow here, because it is far more specific than  or , but that's just my opinion and I understand if you disagree. So back to the beginning:  is an easy way out for keep, but it's meaningless if you can't back it up, so give us your opinion in a form we'll be receptive to: . Thank you
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR||WP:IAR||WP:NFF||WP:GNG||WP:FAVORITE||WP:ILIKEIT||WP:INTHENEWS||WP:ATA||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:BIGNUMBER||WP:COMMONSENSE)