Deletion of Jurassic Park IV (2nd nomination)

Comment: I didn't participate in the previous AfD; I merely pointed out that this entire AfD is a violation of , even if it was created inadvertantly. Again, the proper way to address the issue is to withdraw the nomination and follow the procedures laid out in  for overturning established consensus. No valid reason has been provided for refusing to follow Wikipedia official policy
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:CONSENSUS||WP:CONSENSUS)

Comment: Over a dozen reliable and verifiable sources are provided to establish that the film is in the works and is notable. No requirement exists that a release date be imminent. Given the clear consensus to '''Keep''' in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jurassic Park IV|an AfD held just a few months ago, I would also question if this AfD is not a violation of , which states "Once established, consensus is not immutable.... This does not mean that Wikipedia ignores precedent; for example, editors should not continuously nominate an article to WP:AFD until it reaches their preferred outcome." as there seems to be no change in the status of the article that would justify revisiting the issue
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:CONSENSUS)

Comment: Consensus is not merely a nice thing to try to do, but a bedrock foundation of Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Consensus is marked as official policy. As the policy states, '''"This does not mean that Wikipedia ignores precedent; for example, editors should not continuously nominate an article to WP:AFD until it reaches their preferred outcome. However, an issue that was decided in the past can always be discussed again, especially if there is new information to discuss."''' While the exact words are not used, this would be a rather clear ban on double jeopardy, placing a very strong burden of proof on a nominator seeking to take a second (or third, or fourth...) shot at deleting an article that was closed as a '''Keep''' in the past. otability#Notability requires objective evidence and does not expire|otability (a mere guideline) states that '''"Notability requires objective evidence and does not expire.... If a topic once satisfied these guidelines, it continues to satisfy them over time."''' Given that the previous AfD ended in a clear consensus to keep and given that no new information has been provided to undermine that consensus, it would seem that this AfD is a rather clear violation of 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:CONSENSUS)

Comment: The articles on Star Trek XI and Bond 22 cannot be used as justification for keeping this as those are films with verifiable and confirmed production status. Although there is a comment in this article citing a source stating back in 2006 that production was expected in 2007, there has since been no concrete evidence that such a production is imminent, just various "so-and-so is not in the film" comments. Delete it for now, but make sure there's a paragraph about it in the main article, and a full article can always be recreated if and when production is actually announced. Otherwise |Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball applies
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)