Deletion of Rome Sweet Rome

Comment: and '''redirect'''. (struck. see my keep below) I propose a compromise and have alerted the nominator and above editors of my option on their talk pages. The way I see it, as a article about a planned film, this one is |far too premature. Considering the vagaries surrounding film production and the fact that as this one was only recently optioned by Warner Bros, we'd have a looooong time to wait for principle filming to begin, if ever. But the article led me to the online story itself and to the numerous articles which deal directly and in detail about the short story and to those offering insightful commentary and critique of the story itself and its concept. As a film article, it fails  and does not merit being an |exception... but in looking for alternatives, I considered that |policy allows that discussion of a future event might be worth including somewhere, even if not in its own article. To that end, and as the short story has the coverage to meet |the general notability guide and |criteria for writing about fiction, I took it upon myself to write a different article... one that instead deals directly with the short story that is '''A)''' receiving coverage, and '''B)''' receiving critical anaysis and commentary im reliable secondary sources. I then included a short section dealing with the story's film prospects that could then be used as a redirect target. Please visit
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:NYF||WP:NFF||WP:FFCLARIFY||WP:FUTURE||WP:GNG||WP:WAF)