Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saw VI (2nd nomination)
and here's why: No-one is disputing that ''Saw VI'' is highly likely to happen. But the point is that it's not ''100% likely''. It might seem like a petty distinction to make, but without that distinction provided by |the notability guideline for future films, we'd have stubby articles on all kinds of films that seemed to many reasonable people highly notable and likely at the time, but which never went ahead for whatever reason. I'm thinking of Spielberg's ''Steven Spielberg#Upcoming projects|Lincoln'', which has been happening "next year" for the last four years, ''White Jazz (film)|White Jazz'', Oliver Stone's ''Pinkville'' (which got as far as having its sets built), ''Justice League (film)|Justice League'' (fully cast and ready to film, the writers' strike put an end to that one), ''Silver Surfer (film)|Silver Surfer'' (written, but pulled at the last minute due to the slightly disappointing box office of ''Fantastic Four 2|F42''). All of these were announced, given tentative release schedules, etc. and all were abandoned or postponed. Just look at how many productions were postponed, even shelved indefinitely, because of the 2007-2008 Writers Guild of America strike. Even ''Jurassic Park IV'', part of one of the most lucrative film franchises of recent years, and which most people would consider a no-brainer for a speedy greenlight, was supposed to be ''released'' in 2005 (and consider this: if Wikipedia had been around in the 1990s, without the guideline, we'd have had seven or eight different articles on ''Superman film series#Superman V|Superman V'' by now). The guideline isn't there to piss anyone off, I support it even though I've had articles of my own fall under its sword. That's because it's there for good, practical reasons. Budget, scripting and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. We've seen so many projects fall by the wayside at the last minute, especially in the current climate, that employing the guideline as strictly as we can is the only way of ensuring that Wikipedia doesn't get clogged with stub articles about films which were never made and thus would ultimately fail the |general notability guideline. There's a very good reason we have an article on development hell: because films get stuck in it all the time. In accordance with the guideline, the article can be recreated without prejudice if and when principal photography is finally confirmed to have begun. For now, any verifiable information should sit nicely at Saw (film series)#Future development or Saw V#Sequel. I would urge fans of the series not to consider whether the film "deserves" an article, but instead to consider what's best for the readers of these articles. With what little information is available about ''Saw VI'' at present (naturally, because filming hasn't started), surely the best place for information on it is in the context of the other films in the series
— User:Steve, 09:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Stance: merge
Cited policy: WP:NFF||WP:N (Wikipedia:Notability)