Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars Episode VII (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Star Wars sequel trilogy. - Well, there were a LOT of comments below. And, needless to say, arguements saying "It's Star Wars" did not have much weight, except to help remind of Wikipedia's Systemic_bias. Knifing through it all, the question is not whether the infomation could exist on Wikipedia (there is clear consensus for that), but rather the question whether just an announcement (albeit with many references) is enough to keep as a standalone article. Several polices and guidelines and such were tossed back and forth. But no argument ever appeared to get past WP:NOT#CRYSTAL, which held the most weight in this discussion. That said, as is always noted with discussions concerning CRYSTAL: Wait a bit. If the topic turns out to be notable, the references will come. So with that in mind, there is no prejudice against future recreation should policy requirements be met; but as this has been shown to be contentious, that recreation should be as a result of a consensual discussion, and not merely by being bold. - jc37 07:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Episode VII[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Star Wars Episode VII (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just announced today. No information available other than a tentative release year. Prime for speculation. CRRaysHead90 | Get Some! 22:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prima facie case for a redirect to Star Wars sequel trilogy (which might want to be renamed Star Wars sequels now). Why was this even brought here? Morwen - Talk 22:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To keep all options open. CRRaysHead90 | Get Some! 23:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See WP:FFEXCEPTIONS. "Has the topic of the film's planing or pre-production generated multiple, non-trivial news stories?" Yes, certainly. --BDD (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-direct - Have this go to Star Wars sequel trilogy, until substantial information is provided. DarthBotto talk•cont 22:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I have changed my mind. I would like to allow this page to continue to build. DarthBotto talk•cont 07:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Redirect. WP:CBALL says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." It's been confirmed that Disney plans on making a new film (which, except for the John Carter sequels, sadly, is all but confirmation that the films will be made), and that's all the article says. If that's not good enough, I'm pretty sure we're going to have to give this it's own article at some point, so redirecting would just be easier than outright deleting. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect All over the news today behind Sandy; obvious redirect to Star Wars sequel trilogy. §FreeRangeFrog 22:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and protect. This is going to be a hot-button issue for a while. As of now, there is literally only one story, that it has been announced (being reported by many sources). There is not enough information to have a stand-alone article; the information we have can easily be held at Star Wars sequel trilogy. I do not think this constitutes as an exception to WP:NFF (yet). This could easily change in the near future depending on how much information is released and the progress of production. Also, if we can get this protected either way, I have a feeling there is going to be a multitude of vandalism and speculation. BOVINEBOY2008 23:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and protect per above. All of the news is about the deal, not about the film, of which there is no news bar a anticipated release date. GDallimore (Talk) 23:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Late addendum. Looking at the article again, it's even more clearly a case for a redirect than it was before. Still, the only concrete information in the article is about the deal between Disney and Lucas, not about the film. Therefore the article fails notability requirements because there are no reliable sources giving significant coverage to the topic of the article. The rest of the article is just speculation about plot points, and that speculation is so broad and vague that it covers all three films in the aniticipated sequel trilogy, not just episode 7, hence the trilogy article being the only viable location for this information. Those calling on "ignore all rules" have failed to identify how keeping the article would improve wikipedia. To my mind, it would be an improvement to wikipedia to congregate all this information in a more sensible loction. There isn't a script, director, or anything that could make this a viable standalone article yet. GDallimore (Talk) 00:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and protect per above. 68.5.248.5 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--For all the reasons given above. I think it contains important information (like for example "the plot will not be based on the various novels") Comet21 (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is already sufficient information to warrant an article. We have a working title, a studio, a distributor, an executive producer, a creative consultant, an anticipated release date, and information about related films and sequels. The article about the sequel trilogy addresses a different topic and should therefore be a different article. MaxVeers (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None of which is criteria for notability per WP:NFF. The guideline even points out that The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. In cases like this it make since to to merge it with a page on a broader topic.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting to Star Wars Episode 7 would violate the naming convention, as all of the movies use Roman numerals, not English numerals. --User:Hmich176 (talk) 08:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sufficient information is already available for a standalone article and more will become available in the coming days and weeks as with all upcoming announced movies. Gateman1997 (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Bovineboy2008. Cliff Smith 23:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MaxVeers, CaptPicard (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MaxVeers, Bigvinu (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, agree with Gateman1997. There may be more information coming up soon, and there's already enough for an article. Imareaver (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. WP:NFF is quite clear on this and there are not enough independent sources on different aspects of this particular production per WP:GNG to override the guideline.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. There is not enough information yet. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm a fan of the series and as such may be biased, but this is clearly notable and expandable. Particularly, Lucas' denials of a seventh or further movie and early ideas for the movie would be enough to add a 'development' section, and it is widely reported by media outlets. Toa Nidhiki05 00:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nobody would consider deleting the page of Return of the Jedi. Why would anybody want to delete the sequel to Return of the Jedi? So far, all indications are that this film will be produced. And when this is the next Star Wars film...WIERDGREENMAN, Thane of Cawdor THE CAKE IS A LIE (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because ROTJ was already released. This isn't. By pointing out ROTJ, WP:OTHERCRAP, perhaps? ZappaOMati 01:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:JUSTAVOTE. ZappaOMati 01:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find this a common problem in many AfDs. A link to it should be added to the template at the top of the page. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, eventually rename - If no more information is released about it (which I find unlikely) then perhaps it could be redirected. Either way is fine, but keeping it seems more practical. RoyalMate1 01:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- It's not like we can't have articles on future films on Wikipedia. Plenty of them exist, and this one, though it was announced recently, has a lot of info we already know, enough for its own article. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 01:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because we don't think it's notable. The article includes little more than a release date and production company. A redirect to the article Star Wars sequel trilogy would fully replace any purpose this one serves. It's only generated a single news story (i.e. the release in and of itself) and it's not actually certain this will really even happen. Coppaar (talk) 01:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like given the immense cultural impact of the Star Wars franchise, even if this film were canceled, that by itself would be sufficiently notable to justify a short article. MaxVeers (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Obviously notable. The first six films were among the highest-grossing movies ever. It's been confirmed that this movie will go into production (whether we like it or not). It clearly meets the criteria for an article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree completely. The first six movies don't have any bearing on whether the article should be kept (Furthermore, they weren't extremely high-grossing: Only Episode IV made the top ten, and then only after adjusted for inflation). There is only one major source cited on the page, namely Fox News. All we know is that Disney is serious about it, but that doesn't mean they can make it happen. Getting into specific policy, it's clearly not an exception to NFF (See WP:FFEXCEPTIONS) since it has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Note that other than Fox, the other three sources are Hollywood/Film news sites, meaning they are not independent of the subject at all. What's more, the coverage of the release would need to be covered persistently by multiple reliable sources over an extended period, which clearly hasn't happened. There is not an overabundance of information in the article (Production Studio, Executive Producer, creative consultant, and—oh, that's it. We don't even know the official name.) and there is a clear target for a redirect. I just don't see why we need a separate article for the sequel at this point. Coppaar (talk) 02:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not to derail, but the series is currently the third highest-grossing film series of all time (after Harry Potter and James Bond), not adjusted for inflation. Niado (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per your comment about NFF, I have updated the article sources to include independent coverage from four major media outlets: CNN, NYTimes, Fox News (AP), and Forbes. MaxVeers (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Star Wars sequel trilogy until there's more information about it. Ausir (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deleting it would make no sense, as it would just have to be recreated later anyway. There are already plenty of reliable sources covering it in the media and there is a large amount of public interest in it. There is no question that it meets Wikipedia's notability requirements for its own article. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Because this article will expand quickly and new details will come out regularly and if you want this deleted you hate Star Wars Þadius (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is little or no evidence that said information will be forthcoming, and we really don't know what we'll know and when. Right now there is not nearly enough information (certainly not enough unique information) that the page can't simply redirect to the trilogy page. Furthermore, let's stay away from WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT. Coppaar (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. 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 featured article in the future or as a Good Article as happened with these three articles--Bumblezellio (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course. This is obviously notable, has been covered by lots of reliable media, has plenty of interest to the public, is certain to go ahead, and would be notable even if it was cancelled.

Deleting it would just waste people's time and lead to it being inevitably recreated later when people come to their senses. We have enough information to justify a short article already, and no doubt more information will be coming soon. A link to the Star Wars sequel trilogy would be better than a redirect. Carl Kenner (talk) 02:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be specific? What information is included in Episode VII that isn't in the trilogy's page? Which reliable media sources have covered this and indicated that the production is ultimately certain? And can you address the issue that coverage has not taken place over an extended period of time, as it should to warrant an article? In my view, (as I expressed earlier) this article is far from meeting the requirements for WP:FFEXCEPTIONS, so we need to follow WP:NFF. If you can show that it meets the requirements for an exception, then by all means do so. Coppaar (talk) 03:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is extremely notable. Deleting it now would be like deleting Duke Nukem Forever when it was announced. The article is sparse but should be improved quickly and readily. DillonLarson (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP. Wow it sure didn't take long for the ole Deleat & Notable label to appear on this article did it!!! I do not believe Star Wars VII is not Notable, On the contrary Star Wars VII is very much notable and is being discussed all around the world and it will appear in many print magazines and newspapers. Onto a related topic: My Objection (To the tag that this article is not notable). As always, in my opinion, I see the Wikipedia policy of Notability as being faulty. Because of Notability, many people in USA and EU have missed out on some very good local articles. Also local articles have been excluded from Wikipedia, that started in the USA. How many people know that there is a town named Capps in Arkansas? No one if they solely depended on Wikipedia. If that article (About Capps, Arkansas) were written it would be removed for being too minor and no notability. Also,in my opinion,I believe that Notability can be used to restrict who can write an article to Wikipedia. Its time Wikipedia end this policy of Notability. And that's my opinion. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 03:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There will be an article about it eventually anyway. Why not start now? Allemannster (talk) 03:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just announced today or not, prime for speculation or not, the fact that there's going to be a new Star Wars movie is, well, ridiculously notable and article-worthy. Does it need to be monitored very closely? Yes. Lexicon (talk) 03:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • obvious redirect to Star Wars sequel trilogy, no justification for forking now, fork when there's actually something to write about. Hairhorn (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep we should. Notable within hours of being announced, and, as each movie will have its own article, we might as well start them off with their own to avoid changing later. Celtechm (talk) 03:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If this film is never actually made, the fact that it was announced and put into early planning stages is still notable enough to warrent it's own article. This is the type of film that generates attention long before it is ever produced.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't understand what the problem is. This is a film that has been announced as part of a huge deal. Disney spent $4 billion on a company whose main IP is Star Wars. I don't think there's any serious question that this movie will be made and that we'll hear more about it in the near future, and if they've started naming production staff, that seems to be enough to merit its own page. Mockingale (talk) 04:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is a huge announcement and a highly-searched item. Details are sure to come. No way this isn't notable. The fact that it's making any kind of dent in the news amid a Storm-of-the-Century a week before the US Presidential election is testament to its newsworthiness. JesseRafe (talk) 05:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Redirect Notability is insufficient at this time to justify its own article. As others have pointed out, a nascent story about a potential movie, or other piece of media, currently in production is insufficient to justify a page in and of itself. Notability of this work may eventually, indeed it probably will, reach a point where a page for it is justified and appropriate, but it isn't there yet. The article that exists at this time has little real information other than the executives attached to the film. In fact, it has so little information that a more indepth article, one that is appropriate to an encylopedia, would like use very little of the material presented thus far verbatim. As such, claims that the page will eventually reach a sufficient level of notability so we might as well have the page up now are faulty; the eventual page will have little resemblance to what is present in the instant. As such, it would be a good thing to erase the instant entry and redirect it as it gives editors a chance to write a truly good article once more information becomes available. 108.20.160.148 (talk) 05:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep "the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Double-Check. The event is certainly notable (appearing on dozens and dozens of news sites), and every story covered says the film will occur in 2015. There's not much ambiguity here. "If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." Again, double-check. Preparation for the event IS in progress, so it's not even speculation at this point. It's not even speculation anymore! How much more of a no-brainer can you get? 66.41.21.174 (talk) 05:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I don't doubt there's going to be much information generated on this in the weeks to come. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 05:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The Star Wars films are among the most popular in history, having been quintessential to the culture of two seperate generations. Users like myself will come to Wikipedia to verify the rumors, and we would err in depriving the knowledge seeking public from this article.68.98.20.120 (talk) 06:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.20.120 (talk) 06:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a primary source and cannot use primary sources per WP:NOR, so this would not be a vaild reason to maintain the article as is. --User:Hmich176 (talk) 08:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This will certainly grow to be a huge page by 2015 (although it will be required to move to incorporate the actual title when announced)--Jonie148 (talk) 07:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Redirect and protect. Per WP:NFF, there's no reason for this article to exist separately from Star Wars sequel trilogy. Per WP:HAMMER, 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 AfD for Star Trek XII which resulted in a redirect. --User:Hmich176 (talk) 07:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • REDIRECT (completely fails WP:CRYSTAL) – The same content is already covered at Star_Wars_sequel_trilogy#Disney-Lucasfilm Star Wars episodes 7, 8 and 9 (2012–present). The film hasn't even been confirmed yet. It is just speculation at this point and violates the policy on two fronts: Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place and Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. . I hope the adjudicating admin actually judges this case on the basis of Wikipedia's policies rather than the fanboy reaction. Betty Logan (talk) 08:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG AND SPEEDY REDIRECT. Can easily be covered at Star Wars sequel trilogy until it becomes a reality and notable per WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL. 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. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think most editors, period, haven't read it. It's somewhat obscure, like a lot of Wikipedia articles. That said, the article is more like a list of pet peeves than useful. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - nowhere near certain to take place. The number of films announced and then don't happen easily shows that. By certain to take place, we're talking about the next Olympics, the next national election etc. A film that hasn't even started filming yet doesn't count. KTC (talk) 10:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, - it's going to have to exist eventually. It might as well be now. --Mwongozi (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article was deleted at first nomination because, per the arguments then, the film was "never going to happen". The film is now probably going to happen - and, here's the key thing: following this announcement, even if the film subsequently does not happen its failure to appear will itself be notable.
Considering the arguments thus far (ignoring appeals to acronym), the best one in favour of redirection is that "as of now, there is literally only one story, that it has been announced" (Bovineboy2008). Whilst true at this precise moment in time, whatver happens next - even if nothing ever happens next - will itself be a story worthy of inclusion. And if redirection happens now, at what point can the article be resurrected without immediately being deleted on the grounds of having previously been deleted? -- LondonStatto (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NFF, the information can be included at Star Wars sequel trilogy until such time as it meets the criteria in this notability guideline and/or consensus deems it notable in its own right, and a breakout article is warranted. This time is not now. If the film does not happen, then it is unlikely to be independently notable beyond the realms of the sequel trilogy page in any case. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since Disney are buying up Star Wars we can assume they will commercially exploit this: however, since Revenge of the Sith we have had an animated film and a TV series. Neither of those were an Episode 7. Inbetween Return of the Jedi and The Phantom Menace we had two further Star Wars films based on the Ewok property (Caravan of Courage: An Ewok Adventure and Ewoks: The Battle for Endor) (neither of those were Episode 7) and two TV series (Star Wars: Ewoks and Star Wars: Droids), none of which were regarded as an Episode 7; so yes, it sounds like more Star Wars media is forthcoming, but the nature of it being an Episode 7 is far from confirmed. Until they say yep, we have a script, we are casting, we are going ahead we a direct continuation of the Star Wars saga, we are doing Episode 7, then it is not confirmed there is going to be an Episode 7 or indeed a sequel trilogy. Disney may take the franchise in a completely different direction with new characters, or may concentrate on The Clone Wars, or heaven forbid assign Pixar to a new Ewok or Jar Jar film, or (sacrilege) even remake the original film. There are so many different ways a franchise like this can progress, so it makes sense to redirect and reconsider this when something is actually put into production and we have a concrete idea of what it is. Betty Logan (talk) 11:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the M&A history alone is notable, and the development and pre-release news (which all eventually be part of a "Background" section) would certainly make for a great, encyclopedic stub.Zythe (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1[edit]

  • Redirect until more detailed information about the film becomes known, per concepts like WP:HAMMER. --MASEM (t) 12:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:HAMMER is just an essay; it's not a policy or a guideline. Even if this article is deleted (which I doubt will happen), it will be eventually recreated. So, at the end of the day, there will be an article about this topic. So, this AfD is pointless. The only thing that this AfD will accomplish is to waste dozens of editor's time that could have been better spent improving other articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I did some studying on WP:CRYSTAL and 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 WP:HAMMER though.--Bumblezellio (talk) 12:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest you read them again. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per the stated guideline, "high hopes" or even a likely high-profile release does not guarantee that the film will be made. Exceptions to NFF are few and far in-between. Only when significant coverage overwhelming surpasses WP:GNG, should an exception be made. At this point most of the coverage covers the same aspect of the project and should not be counted as significant.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the movie is canceled (which is highly unlikely - Disney isn't going to spend $4 billion for nothing), the cancelation itself would trigger dozens of articles in secondary sources which would still this topic notable. Either way - no matter how you slice it and dice it - we still have an article about this topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it was cancelled, it can be easily discussed among the other failed projects at Star Wars sequel trilogy. No need for this article as well. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It can be discussed in both articles. Star Wars sequel trilogy would have a summary, and this article would have more detail. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly enough content and enough sources here to warrant the article's existence. -- Chuq (talk) 13:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment. A lot of the keep camp start their comments with "clearly", yet fail to demonstrate how it meets notability guidelines. Without a demonstration as to why this article should be exempt from notability guidelines, it should *clearly* be deleted/redirected. Also, a number of editors are using the argument "It will just be re-created later on". This is not a valid argument against deleting now. As yet, it is not notable, so the article should not exist. It can be re-created when it becomes notable. Not to mention the sheer number of "Keep per Max Veers" !votes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rob, I see your frequent WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL citations and I raise you WP:IGNORE. I'm not particularly impressed with those guidelines and they do allow for exceptions. MaxVeers (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are sensible and well established guidelines, and entirely appropriate in cases like this. Can you demonstrate why you think they should be WP:IGNOREd? What arguments are there in favour of making an exception in this case? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not like other articles that warrant deletion. There is substance here. It's a strong start. It's got citations for what it has to say, AFAIK. What it does have to say is at least the bare minimum of requirements. LazyBastardGuy 13:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No doubt this should be a keep, there are numerous and very credible sources. Not to mention that it is very likely to be a deluge of information regarding this subject that will further warrant a full article. Chelos (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as far too early: there's no information and no certainty it will even be made. Lots of sequels to big films have been announced that never made it to release (e.g. Total Recall 2 rumored for 20 years[2], The Subtle Knife "pencilled in for release in 2009"[3], Ghostbusters 3), or like Indiana Jones 4 went through decades of announcements and cancellations. It's not the purpose of Wikipedia to log every rumor and press release. Any encyclopedic content should go in the article on the franchise. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As much as I hate to say this, and as much as I hope this doesn't end up getting made -- Keep. IMO movies should require more information than a stub to warrant inclusion as their own article (as opposed to being merged or redirected elsewhere), but current consensus doesn't require that, and technically everything here passes WP:N and WP:V with very little WP:CRYSTAL. 81M (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge confirmed information with Star Wars and redirect - see below 81M (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to have a rethink there. There is a specific notability guideline for future films which this does not pass. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean it doesn't pass WP:NFF? "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." It doesn't look like there's an exception for high profile releases. Thanks for pointing that out... 81M (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong comment. Since this has only just been announced, more sources are likely to be forthcoming in the very near future, and any deletion or redirect proposition should bear that in mind: there's not much point in deleting an article one day for it to have to be remade the next with much the same content. --xensyriaT 14:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why it should be redirected until such time as it meets the notability guideline and warrants its own article. There's nothing here that will be lost, as all info is currently at Star Wars sequel trilogy. There is nothing of substance yet, just an announcement, and articles like this are the reason that WP:NFF exists. I've yet to see an argument making the case as to why we shouldn't follow WP:NFF, most of the arguments seem to follow the arguments given as examples not to use. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NFF is a sound set of guidelines, but this is a case when "likely to be a high-profile release" doesn't really cover it. The production of future Star Wars films was given as the reason for the multi billion dollar sale of Lucasfilm, an unprecedented event; the possibility of development hell is a vanishingly remote. --xensyriaT 14:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who knows what the future has in store? It's always a possibility that this will never happen, no matter how unlikely. There's nothing to stop the event being written about on Star Wars sequel trilogy in the meantime though. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal ball seems to be an argument for future notability ("how perceptions will change in the future"; "Notability is based... not on subjective judgments of whether people should take notice in the future"); notability has been established by the media coverage. NFF's argument is that even notable films may not be made. Mine is that the multi billion dollar sale of a company with the development of one film (and future sequels) as the reason makes a comparison with other high profile releases untenable, and grounds to WP:IGNORE the rules in this case. --xensyriaT 15:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst the concept of a seventh film could be considered notable, the seventh film in itself is not yet. This is why it should be "included in articles about its subject material" (i.e. Star Wars sequel trilogy) until it is produced or attains notability in its own right. There is no case to ignore or make an exception to the notability guideline at present. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The concept (i.e. the article that you're proposing the redirect to) was moderately notable, with a few reliable sources in the last 30 or so years; it's pre-production (generally considered to be the start of the film as a thing in itself) has proven to be extremely so already, less than a day after its announcement. Following your argument, it could be argued that a film should not have an article until the day of its release, as until then what is being discussed is just its publicity or development. In practice, though these topics could have their own articles ("Publicity of Star Wars Episode VII" / "Development of Star Wars Episode VII"), it's common sense to put this into the article where readers will expect to find information on a topic, and indeed, will come to to find out if any further announcements have been made (an additional benefit when keeping it, though I'm sure it's also something that Wikipedia is not). --xensyriaT 15:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC) EDIT: 15:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite correct - Wikipedia is not a news source. However, with the redirect, anyone coming to Wikipedia would be able to find the information at the sequel trilogy page, where the concept can be discussed until the film itself meets the notability guidelines. I would also like to point out that once cameras start rolling, this does not automatically make a film notable - it would still need to be discussed objectively in reliable sources, but by then, if we build up the article on the sequel trilogy page, we will have gathered this information. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and also from WP:NFF - "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, generally, they shouldn't. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And you agree that it's no longer just a concept? That's the crux of the news story, and the argument for the film deserving its own article. The article you mention should be kept and maintained of course, and is the ideal place for details of the future of the series which would otherwise accumulate as irrelevant clutter on this article, but to redirect there ignores the stark difference in reality between this film and previous proposals. --xensyriaT 16:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not agree. It is still a concept - there is no physical product and a film does not yet exist. Therefore it is too soon for a film article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of sources are you expecting in a day for a 2015 film? Are they suddenly going to come up with a director, screen writers, actors, filming locations, script analysis, budget info?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Development updates have been announced, IIRC, but "one day to the next" was a figure of speech. --xensyriaT 15:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - The movie is official --SuperHotWiki (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How? As a product it does not yet exist, and the only coverage are news reports on the sale of Lucasfilm and an announcement. NOTHING is known about the film. It is not notable. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They bought Lucusfilms to make more Star Wars films. And there is coverage referring to this fact. Coverage also on how some don't trust Disney to make a decent Star Wars film even in major business magazines such as Forbes. [4] Just read through the Google news results for the film. Dream Focus 22:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but since Return of the jedi there have been six Star wars films and four TV series, and none of them were the fabled Episode 7. There will be more Star Wars media, but at this stage it is unclear how it will progress: there is no script, there has been no casting, in fact no significant development whatsoever: in short just an announcement, and development could easily progress in any number of ways. Betty Logan (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They already stated they are making three more Star Wars films now. [5] That article also states they have already been meeting with George Lucas about this for months now. Dream Focus 07:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All the coverage basically states the same thing. There isn't significant coverage, it's repetitive coverage.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the coverage in different reliable sources says the same thing or not, is not relevant. Its like that for everything the media covers. Anything notable will have the same facts written about it in many different places. Dream Focus 22:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. The vast majority of the coverage thus far has covered the same aspect of the film, a 2015 release. This is not significant. Significant coverage implies covering the topic from multiple angles with unique information being detailed, not just a reporting of a single press release.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per GDallimore, 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. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this article is more notable than the Star Wars sequel trilogy article. That article is mostly fancruft -- an overly detailed collection of production rumors. Plus there is far less information about the new trilogy than there is for this one article on Episode VII. If redirects are being proposed, I think redirecting the sequel trilogy article here makes more sense. MaxVeers (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The other article discusses the whole concept of a sequel trilogy over the years. This article is nothing more than the latest installment in that saga. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect per WP:CRYSTAL. That there are many fanboys is just a reason to be extra observant of the guidelines. Smetanahue (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment with early release of some idea of what the plot will be this seems even more of a strong case for keep. The Star Wars sequel trilogy article is largely about plans for a sequel trilogy originally advanced in the 1970s and abandoned by the late 1990s. For all intents and purposes it is an entirly different thing than what is covered by this article. This is not a case of Crystal. If the project stalls in development, the fact remains it has recived wide coverage and is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the two main arguments for redirection ignore the special circumstances involved here. This film is notable now, without regard to what happens further down the line with filming, let alone release. This is a film that will be notable and worth an article even if it never goes to the production stage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "special circumstances" are just the high number of fans, it's irrelevant in an encyclopedic context. Smetanahue (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Nonsense. There are no "special circumstances" just because it's high profile. As I've mentioned elsewhere, if the project stalls in development, then it is unlikely to be independently notable beyond the realms of the Star Wars sequel trilogy page, where it could be discussed alongside other false starts. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The film is unique in the sheer amount of money that has changed hands because of this film. That also differentiates this film (which has been announced as having entered pre-production) from the planned sequels (some of the plot details of which became redundant before the release of A New Hope). Granted, were it to be cancelled before it was released, its place would be in that sequels article, but, after all, Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. --xensyriaT 16:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC) EDIT: 16:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How does the fact that one company bought another company make the fact that this film is in development unique? There seems to be a lot of WP:ILIKEIT going on around here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that major production companies are bought and sold over film franchises every day? The expense Disney has gone to to acquire the rights to make this film are phenomenal, and means a notoriously uncertain prospect (development hell is the reason for the NFF guidelines widely quoted here) is assured for this film. (And I wouldn't call myself a Star Wars fan to be honest, I really just think it merits its own article... I'm not sure I've seen all of the movies...). --xensyriaT 16:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Topic passes general notability. While it's true that NFF would prohibit the creation of such an article, but the prohibition would make no sense in this instance. Even if it were not made, that would be notable too. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone actually read WP:NFF? I can't think of a better example of when this guideline directly applies. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have, so, yes. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - For me it is similar to the 2018 Winter Olympics, we don't know much yet, but we are sure it will happen, barring a catastrophe of biblical proportions. Hektor (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's in the arguments to avoid list. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry dear deletion crusader, but I respectfully disagree. Hektor (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So why do you think we should make an exception to WP:NFF in this case? --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Try WP:COMMON. Hektor (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the common sense option is to follow the well-established guidelines, as there are no extenuating circumstances to not do so. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Wholeheartedly agree that there's not enough information yet to fulfill a separate article. A redirect can allow us to keep the page until we get more information. Freshh (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this were a normal pre-production movie we would just delete the article. However very few people think we should do that, which recognizes this is not a normal case and cannot be treated in the normal way. The issue is really if we should merge to the more general sequesl trilogy article. The problem is those are mainly about a potential sequal trilogy that existed in the mind of Lucas, and was shared on rare occasions with others, for 20 years starting over 30 years ago. This is a new, and inherently different thing, that should have a seperate article. As it is this article is longer than a great many articles, with two sections already. It seems big enough to stand alone. That said, I have to say that this is not as sure a think as the 2018 Olympics. For all we know this film will not be relased until 2018.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tiny little article, with a bare minimum of information based on a single event that can easily be housed elsewhere. As myself and a couple of other editors have pointed out, a lot of the "keep" !votes above do not take into account the established guidelines and seem to be based on the fact that a lot of people like Star Wars. For the record, I also like Star Wars. However, this is not a reason to make an exception. As you point out, were this any other movie, it would be a clear case for a delete. We can't make exceptions based on fanbase, and we need to apply the guidelines correctly. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and protect. WP:NFF Scronide (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)— Scronide (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. Obvious special case, for a film that is already notable whether it is made or not. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but Lock. Deleting would be futile anyway because it's been announced by Disney, which most people read as guaranteed to happen. Semi-protection should sufficiently address the concerns over speculation. Sarysa (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A reasonable proposal. Thanks. Hektor (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the Redirect/Merge/Lock solution. It's an obvious search term (hell, I came to this AFD from a search) but there's just not enough coverage to meet the WP:GNG and it fails WP:NFILMS. Redirect it to Star Wars sequel trilogy and wait for production. Achowat (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't delete it, everyone wants an article and it's a confirmed event to be released 3 years from now. Deleting the article 2020 makes more sense than deleting this!--FourthLineGoon (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect To a section about the future film in the main Star Wars article. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are enough sources now to indicate that it passes WP:N 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 WP:NFF guideline notwithstanding. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Only delete or merge if movie winds up in development hell. ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and burn all the nerds! – Clearly goes against WP:FUTURE 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. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 19:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Burn the nerds? That seems a little harsh... CRRaysHead90 | Get Some! 19:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering the sources are main-stream news articles calling this "unencyclopedic fan-based theorizing" seems a reaction to what the person thinks the article is while ignoring the actual contents of the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're wrong. The news states nothing more than that there "will" be a VII.. everything else is a "might be", "could be" or "expected to be", all terms attributed to theory, not fact. Trying to derive factual claims is simply high-hope fancruft, or possibly WP:SYNTH. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 20:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WLU. Canuck89 (what's up?) 20:51, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
  • Redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_sequel_trilogy until filming commences.User:patchallelPatchallel (talk)Patchallel (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- It's a very notable project with available sourceable information right now, and can slowly be expanded over the years as further information comes out... AnonMoos (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2[edit]

  • Keep Why was this even nominated? There are reliable sources and is well documented. Plus, this is Star Wars, doesn't WP:IAR apply? :p --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 22:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should look at what it looked like when I nominated it here to know why I nom'd it. I still stand by it. CRRaysHead90 | Get Some! 23:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's hardly a valid reason to nominate an article for deletion. --User:Hmich176 (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is really quite revealing. The nominator is saying that the reason he put the article up for deletion no longer holds; the argument that the article has no actual facts applies equally to requests to delete or redirect the article, and doesn't apply to the article as it is (which doesn't seem to be the article many editors seem to be talking about). The article has grown so fast already, and news items have continued to appear with new information about the film; many of the early Delete or Redirect arguments here counted on this not happening. --xensyriaT 01:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're joking right.. "grown so fast" yet it's still a Stub or basic Start.. if there's so much "notable" material available, I hope none of the editors aiming to expand this article ever try to create GA/FA material based on the same "keep" reasoning. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 01:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The comment the nominator made here pointed out the expansion of the article from a real stub. As for notability within the article, everything in there at the moment is notable to the topic (or I have no doubt it would be quickly removed with the number of eyes on it), and I'll hazard a guess that this article will make GA/FA within, say, three years, whether it's deleted now or not. --xensyriaT 03:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you credit there: for actually believing that Wiki will retain enough decent educated editors to still be here and worth spending time on in 3 years... Ma®©usBritish{chat} 05:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Allie People are talking about this, searching for it, wanting to know what it is. I think every Star Wars should have it's own Wikipedia page.
This isn't Wookieepedia. ZappaOMati 03:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect for now: Per WP:NFF as mentioned previously. When the film begins principal photography, then most definitely reinstate. Every indication is it'll become reality, but there have been major projects in the past that have been scrapped or extremely delayed for whatever reason. Chinese Democracy immediately springs to mind. Faustus37 (talk) 22:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Long Comment My thoughts are these: The first and best policy to look at here is WP:NFF. This film has not started principle photography, and it is clearly outlined that in this scenario, a film should not yet have its own page. But wait, we're not done yet, because there are a few WP:FFEXCEPTIONS. Has the film's pre-production or planning generated "multiple non-trivial news stories"? No it has not, the only news story as yet is the announcement in and of itself. Is the coverage of the topic of the film's production "enduring and persistent in multiple reliable sources and over an extended period?" No, unless you consider a couple days to be an extended period. Is there not a suitable redirect target? Of course there is, as we've been saying, Star Wars sequel trilogy is an entirely appropriate redirect. And, is there too much information to redirect the article? I think not, considering that the sequel trilogy page already contains almost all the relevant information we know about Episode VII. So pretty clearly, this is no exception to NFF. The only recourse you have if you want it kept is WP:IAR, so let's address that. Why is keeping Episode VII in Wikipedia's best interest? Say we redirect it: people wanting to know about the film may search for Episode VII under that name, and find themselves at the sequel trilogy page. What's the big deal? They were announced jointly, because they are in a sense one and the same. The information about Episode VII is the same information we have about the rest of the trilogy, because it all came from a single statement by Disney. So people won't miss Episode VII for quite a while. And yes, there will very likely be at some point in the future a notable page for this, that's irrelevant because it isn't actually certain (WP:CRYSTAL), and we don't even need the article yet (WP:NORUSH). Lastly, the amount of fans Star Wars has does not have any bearing whatsoever on the notability of the article in review (see WP:FAVORITE). So I ask you: If no policy supports this article, how is it in Wikipedia's best interest? Coppaar (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFF is not a policy, it is a guideline. Therefore, while it is strongly suggested, it is not "mandatory". WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All we have is an announcement, which is easily covered an existing article. If the content evolves to a level that can sustain an article then it can be split out, it's not like this material is actually being deleted, and no-one has actually provided a good reason why this is not a satisfactory solution, despite being more consistent with the guidelines that govern article creation. An exemption to the guideline might be justified if it meant this content was going to be deleted, but that actually isn't the case. As yet the central question hasn't been addressed: why do we need to invoke an exemption to the guideline, when this content can be adequately documented by another article? Betty Logan (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of WP:FAVOURITE, but it certainly applies to most of the arguments put forward here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The topic meets WP:GNG, 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. - BilCat (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If WP:NFF ever had an exception, this is it. This film (and its two sequels) already have over 30 years of history. For those who don't recall (and those who weren't born yet!), George Lucas said 3 decades ago that Star Wars was a ennealogy (a story in 9 parts). (See Blowen, Michael (May 18, 1980). "Star Wars: 27 Years to Go". Boston Globe.) Many folks have been waiting most of their lives for this promise to be fulfilled. Even if it all ends in disaster, the train wreck will have considerable reliably sourced material to cite (a là Something's Got to Give, Don Quixote, The Other Side of the Wind, Dark Blood, and Game of Death), and much of it will come from journalists (and rabid fans) pressuring everyone involved to describe, confirm, or deny many aspects of this project. Even if one is inclined toward deletion, another week of consideration should generate a solid amount of non-trivial, sourced data. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. I've just created a Wiktionary entry for ennealogy, which I expect to be popping up suddenly in the aforementioned sourced material. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Certainly notable and people have been talking about this for decades Roadrunner (talk) 06:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP, as per all the reasons given above. Qwertyuiop1994 (talk) 07:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.86.77 (talk) 12:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 (Link), then redirected again after a user tried to make it it's own article (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 (Link), and then developed as an article in 2010. Simply put, WP:IAR 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 WP:NFF. --Hmich176 (talk) 09:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't do precedence. What happened elsewhere, doesn't affect what happens here. Did these other article shave enough valid content to justify their existence, or were they just one or two sentences? Whatever the random group of people that showed up to comment on the situation there decided, doesn't affect what the random group of people that show up here decide. Dream Focus 09:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Wikipedia does precedent, that is what most of the notability guidelines are based on. The precedent especially applies here, because the films are essentially at the same stage of development. In fact there was more of case for Iron Man 3 existing than the Episode 7 article, since we don't know exactly what form the new Star Wars films will take. In both cases the announcements are both easily covered by other articles, and as yet nobody has actually put forward a reason why we need to breach NFF considering the content will not be dleted, just relocated to a more appropriate article. Betty Logan (talk) 12:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines are based on discussion on their talk pages, not what happens in AFDs. And WP:NOTABILITY clearly states things are notable if they meet the "general notability guideline", which this clearly does, or a "subject-specific guideline". It doesn't have to meet both, either one will do. Dream Focus 15:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These reports detail the future of the Star wars franchise as a whole, and especially the sale of Lucasfilm, they are not specifically about Episode 7: no plot outline, no casting decisions, etc, these articles are not about the 7th film, they merely mention the possibility of one. They establish the notability of the sale of Lucasfilm (which can be adequately covered at the Lucasfilm article) and include some brief details about the future of the franchise (which can be adequately covered on the Star wars sequels article). There is no notability here, it's just a WEIGHT issue that can be adequately served by existing articles. Betty Logan (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree; the news stories I've read (and the interviews given) give more weighting to the Star Wars angle, which has made the sale newsworthy. And they all agree on the point that the film (yes, specifically called Episode VII) is actually in development and no longer the concept it was for the last 40 or so years. --xensyriaT 02:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • REDIRECT to Star Wars sequel trilogy, as that already exists, somehow. I'd say just delete, but a redirect would prevent it being recreated three times a day. Per WP:NFF, it isn't notable until the cameras start rolling. And per WP:FAVOURITE, it doesn't matter how much people want it to happen, or how high profile the names are. If they started today it would be at least a year before it reached that stage. Now, it's just a lot of speculation. We have no idea what the title would really be anyway. Barsoomian (talk) 11:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are 62 keeps and 26 delete (redirect included). When a decision will be taken? --Comet21 (talk) 13:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not vote. Any "Keep" that does not present a rationale won't count. Betty Logan (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot using a rationale along the lines of "it will become notable later, so we may as well have the page now". I hope the closing admin discounts these too. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason they should. Rushing to delete an article that will be created later is pointless and unfriendly.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, in that case... --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't forget WP:CIVIL. --Cheesemeister (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this comment illustrates perfectly the problems with this discussion. Inexperienced editors are joining in, paying no attention to established guidelines. Other, slightly more experienced editors think that it should be kept, purely because it is Star Wars and claiming that an exception to the guidelines should be made on this basis. However, NO editor has put forward a reasonable rationale as to WHY we should make an exception that isn't down to popularity of the subject. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no WP:CONSENSUS for deletion, as was the case in previous AfD discussions. Rather, the preponderance of editors that have opined thus far indicated that it should be kept. --Cheesemeister (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But without a single good argument as to why they think we should make an exception to the guideline. Most hold about as much water as this comment does. Hopefully the closing admin will recognise this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those Keep opinions are primarily fan-cruft, with lack of support for established Wiki policy. It is not the number of reiterations of an opinion that counts, but the strength of opinions. Clearly those that support Wiki guidelines are stronger in merit than fanboy assertions. Most fans seem to ignore the fact that the sale of Lucasfilms to Disney is more a business venture, which affects Star Wars and Indiana Jones, but does not necessarily relate directly to Star Wars VII in terms of its own "film" but rather the future of the Star Wars franchise. Star Wars is a creation, episodes are independent films which need independent notability. As yet, SW7 has no such notability.. its just rumours and theories about what might be, not what is. The quoted sources are mashed together in WP:SYNTH format to create what fans want to hear, not what has been 100% confirmed by Disney. This article jumps the gun as much as "Greedo shot first". Ma®©usBritish{chat} 15:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only argument I see for keep is WP:IAR. However, merging the content of this article to Star Wars sequel trilogy, does not prevent Wikipedia from being improved, because the information still exists albeit in a different location.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Greedo shot first was created as a redirect to Han shot first, that all it ever was. And this article contains information that multiple reliable sources have stated. Dream Focus 15:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you missed the point.. the remark had nothing to go with that article, which I didn't even know existed anyway. It refers to the fact that fans are simply creating an article way ahead of verifiable information on the content of SW7 being available. Encyclopedia's focus on what IS, not what IS NOT, most of the time. Saying "SW7 won't be based on novels or comics" is not a notable claim, and although it may state a fact given by Disney, it implicitly speculates on what the film might be about instead, per WP:CRYSTAL. This is nought but geeks wanting an article for the sake of having an article. It is a waste of time having an article that will undoubtedly turn into a battlefield of speculations, reverts, disruptions and such between fans with alternative opinions, each with a COI based on what they "want" not what "is". Page should be redirected and locked until Disney issue press-releases or statements regarding who the crew and cast will be, what the storyline entails, and stop these wannabe-Jedi editors from trying to predict the future based on a few pre-emptive remarks which relate more to the sale of Lucasfilms than any upcoming films. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 15:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My 'keep' was not "fan-cruft". I would rather see a separate article than one under the trilogy. That's my preference and why I would stick with a 'keep' not-vote. Saying it's "Star Wars" states the obvious in the most succinct way. It's a huge industry. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Star Wars" isn't an industry, but a by-product of the film industry. Its 6 films to date are canon, and derivative creations such as novels, Clone Wars, etc, as well as tacky toys and plastic glowing lightsabers do not make "Star Wars" a unique industry anymore than toy guns make Western films, or Gangster films an "industry". "Star Wars" is a fictional creation, which occupies other great industries to a less degree but more prominently than other creations. Otherwise we could call "Star Trek" or "Lord of the Rings" or the "Saw" films an industry, just because they're popular and resulted in games, toys and spin-off material. Your claim is therefore inaccurate. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 16:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was pointing out what the IP meant. It did not seem to come across. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But where's your rationale for making an exception to the notability guideline? "It's a huge industry" is just WP:POPULARITY. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NFF is a project-specific guideline. It goes beyond notability to specify when the project does not want an article created. It's not a notability argument. It's the project's expressed intent, not about notability. In general, don't create articles like these. A lot of the args for redirect, simply prefer the redirect, to keep the info together. IMO, it's sort of like debating a court injunction. Will the project proceed to release or not? At this point, I see no reason for doubt. So, I expect the information on the project to grow. Since I expect the film to proceed, I think its content will grow to be half or more than half of the trilogy article, if that is where the content will reside, and I think that would be poor article style. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, WP:NFF is not a project-specific guideline, it's a specific guideline for dealing with future films (unlike WP:FUTFILM which is project-specific). It is not inferior to WP:GNG and they can be looked at in tandem. In any case, there's no way that this article meets WP:GNG anyway. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NFF is marked as a WP:FILM page on its discussion page. Maybe that should be removed. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Star Wars sequel trilogy contains all of the available information on this film already; there are literally zero available facts about this film that should not also be in the sequel trilogy article. Until there are sufficient data that expand beyond the limits of that article's scope, there's no reason to maintain multiple articles. Powers T 15:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW Keep - The fact that this landed at AfD is surprising. While it may be brushing WP:CRYSTALBALL a bit, it's obviously encyclopedic content. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 16:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not in the slightest bit "obviously" encyclopedic. What's your basis for claiming this? The only thing that I find surprising about it coming to AfD is that it wasn't immediately redirected in the first place. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW is inapplicable here, as common sense rarely applies when mass fan-based support for an article overwhelms wiki-policy. You even said yourself that CRYSTAL applies, if slight, which contradicts calling SNOW. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 17:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If eds. are basing their argument on NFF's existence alone, then it is a bureaucratic debate. It's a guideline and we need to have informed discussion, not 'yay' or 'nay' based on a guideline. If you want a redirect, you're pre-disposed to it failing, or you simply want to follow convention. If you want it to stay separate, I think you are expecting it to occur and a separate article is the best place for the content. Simple as that. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect 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 WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL. 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). SassyLilNugget (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Redirect - The topic is obviously notable, and while the article will be a WIP for some time, the movie is in development and filming will need to start within two years (at most) to hit the announced 2015 release date. An article for this subject will be created at some point in the very near future, even if this one is deleted now. The earlier that development begins on this article the better quality potential it will have. That being said, the currently small amount of information on the topic could be contained in the existing "sequel trilogy" article, so a redirect would be acceptable. Niado (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect While Episode 7 certainly meets notability criteria, the standard for planned films does not allow an article to be created unless principal photography has begun, and while Wikipedia:NFF is not a policy per se, it is a good guideline that applies very well in this case. Once principal photography has commenced, then an article would be appropriate. Otherwise, the movie is simply hypothetical. 5minutes (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly not 'hypothetical', it's planned. We had an article for the Microsoft Surface upon its announcement by Microsoft. They could have pulled the tablet. The guideline for films is inconsistent with general notability guidelines. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I'm siding with this conclusion based on the arguments above for it. BerserkerBen (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - The page seems to be created just because someone found out about the news, and then decided to create it so they could be the first. But there isn't any point until there is a huge chunk of information to put in. There isn't a page for The Avengers 2 which is being released in 2015. Any information so far, can be mentioned on the 'Sequel Trilogy' page. Charlr6 (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The 'Sequel Trilogy' page really discusses how the sequel trilogy has changed over the years. Episode VII would be specifically about this film production. It would be a fairly large chunk of text devoted to one project of the three planned. It would make better article style to have this film project as a stand-alone article. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 3[edit]

  • Redirect - Episode 7 is by no means a new thought brought out by disney right now. The sequel trilogy has already a long story and until the work on the first of those movies actually starts informations should be kept together in this article. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not a very experienced editor on here, but Reading through deletion policies now I see statements such as "Once there is an objection or a deletion discussion, a page may not be proposed for deletion again." I think it is fair to say that the content of this article will be small for a while, but if we redirect this same discussion will probably happen again in a few days, weeks, or months the next time more information comes out. There are many "stub" articles that people have made on WP that have less information than this one. Yes, perhaps some of them should also be deleted, but this is one that obviously draws a lot of attention. There are also surely plenty of "fans" that are experienced WP editors and likely will be keeping speculation and vandalism out of this article. In other words, I guess I'm saying, why not just wait a while and see what happens? Maybe just restrict edits? Even though there may never be an Episode 7, It really already exists in concept. My 2 cents. Autumn Wind (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And there's the crux of the debate really: it currently only exists as a concept, and has done since the 1970s, and we already have an article detailing this. Pretty much everything in the Episode 7 article is documented in the sequel trilogy article. It's redundnant, nothing exists to justify the existence of a separate and distinct article; we're just recording the same content twice over. Betty Logan (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am ok with redirect also by the way, but lean towards keep. I can see flaws in my own arguments. I would not argue for an Episode 8 or 9 article, but for some reason which I cant explain feel the Ep 7 is ok just because of the ETA of 2015. that's kind of Inconsistent and I realize that. Redirecting and waiting until more information comes out would be fine though.Autumn Wind (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, all the news stories, the article in question and this entire discussion are happening precisely because the film is no longer just a concept; it has been confirmed as having entered pre-production, the discussion with the principal actors shows preliminary casting has begun, the studios have named an expected release date and the amount of money that went into a sale that happened to allow this film to be made makes this a case apart from other newly announced films that NFF was written for, as it puts its production out of doubt. Let's not pretend that this is just another rumour that can be catalogued in the Star Wars sequel trilogy article either (the contents of which have nothing to do with the film being made): this film is now on the go, and that fact has already given it more coverage, making it more notable, than nearly all other Unfinished films on Wikipedia. --xensyriaT 01:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article is getting better and better; it's becoming an interesting read. It's also getting longer and longer. Within only a single day, this has become a decent article. And obviously more and more stuff will be added to it over the coming days, weeks, months, years. At this point, it's almost ridiculous to want a redirect for it. If you read back some of the first comments here of people that wanted a redirect, those comments don't even apply anymore, simply because the article has so much more content now than it had only a single day ago. The whole situation is similar to that of the Ecce Homo (Elías García Martínez) article, it got nominated for deletion and has became a solid article during the nomination period. Too often the question is: will the Deletionists give us enough time to turn this stub into something acceptable before it gets redirected/deleted. Anyways, back to my original point. Just read back the very beginning of this page: "Just announced today. No information available other than a tentative release year. Prime for speculation." And a single day later, we have more information available. Surprise, surprise. It is one of the biggest media franchises on the planet, everyone could've seen this coming. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't say theres really that much information yet, but I do agree that it's bound to get bigger. Possibly not, but perhaps giving it the seven days to make the decision will be adequate. Autumn Wind (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It's all over the news, and it's Star Wars. It certainly warrants keeping it here. It already has plenty of content besides a release date, it's notable and had plenty of resources. JguyTalkDone 00:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can think of one really good reason to keep this article in spite of policies like NFF. Delete it and Wikipedia is going to look really stupid. (I am not a Star Wars fanboy incidentally.) Deleting the previous incarnations back in 2006 was reasonable, not now when it is a chunk of movieland history, being tangled up with the sale to Disney [6]. This is one of those rare cases where an article about a movie is needed even if it is never made into a movie. Keith Henson (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lucasfilm is a production company, and its sale to Disney is a matter unique to Lucasfilm itself, as the company that made but is not Star Wars per se. The fact that Disney inherits the rights to Star Wars and Indiana Jones is also a matter of gain from the sale, and should be noted in their own company articles, and as a matter-of-fact rather than "the" most notable influence for creating this article, when the time is right. Lucasfilm's sale does not affect the overall notability of any planned episode of either film series. Wiki doesn't care about "looking stupid", it hardly stands out as "remarkable" anyway given the poor public view often expressed, so one more deleted article won't change public opinion dramatically overnight, nor can it ever make a loss even if it did. SW7 will earn its place as requiring its own article eventually, no doubt, but until the publication of confirmed facts from Disney occurs, rather than the same rumours and speculation circulating around the net, including Chinese whispers of little value on supposedly "reliable" sites, absolutely nothing can be ascertained. The studio is going to be tight-lipped and will release details in timely fashion not on demand, probably cast details in the months approaching filming, and a few general plot details nearer its release pre-trailer. Everything being cited upto then is purely speculation, or hopeful wishing, written by notable bullshitters, because the media are the biggest liars on Earth, second only to politicians, for writing stories that naive fans will buy into. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 01:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"A matter of gain" yes, but more than that, the reason for the sale. From Disney's point of view, they are much more interested in buying the rights to Lucasfilm's IP than in their value as a production company, and Lucas himself has cited Star Wars as the reason for the sale of his company, and the choice of Disney (yes, perhaps a little naivety is needed to swallow the latter completely; the fanboys comment is patent rhetoric as more who have voted keep have said they're not interested in the franchise than those who voted delete or redirect combined, though perhaps to mask the obvious WP:IDONTLIKEIT) "tangled up with the sale to Disney" describes it nicely. Notability isn't being argued for; it's been clearly established by it's having significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is only the guidance of NFF that is being cited against its inclusion - guidance that is in place because "budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date." Any serious argument for the deletion or redirection of this article would need to make a good case that any of these three issues are likely to occur in this film's development, something which the editors who have voted keep above doubt apply in this case. --xensyriaT 01:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The claim of "significant coverage" is entirely false and misconstrued. There is just one story, which has been circulated and mirrored by all the main-stream news sources, geek dens, fan bases, and other significant ant insignificant websites, as fast as if the news were "WW3 has begun". The story of Lucas selling his company is notable but goes in Lucasfilms and Disney pages; the thought of a SW7 may be notable but not enough to warrant its own page, falsely asserting notability from the sale as a pretext to retaining this page about an upcoming film with no facts available. The notability being claimed here is a lie, and the article is purely speculative WP:FUTURE junk. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 02:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument flies in the face of what we've actually seen so far, with new stories emerging from different sources, each containing new details each day since the announcement: just see how much the article continues to grow while this discussion goes on. The previous characterisation of the existing information being nothing more than Chinese Whispers and that the studio is "going to be tight-lipped and will release details in timely fashion not on demand" is based on nothing more than the speculation that you so strongly condemn, and is precisely the opposite of what we've already seen (and what the studio leads us to expect). --xensyriaT 02:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not speculation, it's fact, based on how the entire film industry acts these days; they minimise pre-release information to maximise curiosity, which results in greater box-office income. People want fewer spoilers these days also. Studios commonly practice limiting how much information they release to the media specific to the film's story and such, so there is absolutely no way, whatsoever, that anyone could write a completely accurate and gapless "plot" of any upcoming SW film until screening begins, unless of course they were involved in the making of it, though that would probably be a breach of their contract. Regardless, that is why we call it "speculation" and not "fact". Ma®©usBritish{chat} 02:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to see; if no further information is revealed before the end of this discussion I'd be surprised. --xensyriaT 03:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness, it is people that vote to keep this crap that damage Wikipedia's public reputation. We have some fantastic stuff but we never get judged on that, and unfortunately there is a small contingent of editors who have pretty much hijacked the AfD process such that stuff that should be junked hardly ever is: it is poorly written speculative rubbish like this article that makes Wikipedia look like a silly fan site. I question the legitimacy of having one speculative article on the Star Wars sequel series, but two is a joke: we end up with two articles containing the same content about a film that does not even exist! Betty Logan (talk) 01:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly think that's being fair (but is a good case of unmasked WP:IDONTLIKEIT). I don't see how your dislike of inclusionism (not exactly a decided topic...) is a serious case for the article being deleted either. --xensyriaT 01:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, I don't like it, because from an encyclopedic perspective it is, frankly, very poor. Inclusionism is good when it extends to topics that are not usually covered in encyclopedias (which was the origina intention), but not ephemeral news stories. If enough content isn't available to write a decent article on the subject then it shouldn't exist in main space, it should be junked or incubated. That is basically the whole point of requiring significant secondary coverage but the principle often goes completely ignored in these AfD debates, because there is a group of editors who will simply vote to keep anything that can be googled, and as such it has resulted in thousands of underdeveloped articles which simply cannot be developed. It's bad for the reputation of the project. Betty Logan (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that's a shame, but you have to concede that this article isn't undevelopable (to coin a phrase) like many of those other examples are: this isn't a flash in the pan, and as many other people have pointed out it would still be notable (perhaps more so in the short term) even if it were. --xensyriaT 02:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a stub. It's not a viable article at the moment, so as per common sense it should be incorporated into an existing more substantial article or incubated. Betty Logan (talk) 02:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I make it 23 sentences and counting (not very little, more than a few); call it what you will, the article's still growing. --xensyriaT 03:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But not so big that it can't realistically be "included in articles about its subject material" as per the recommendation at the relevant guideline. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although this isn't going to cite any policies it should be noted that the article about Revenge of the Sith was created three years prior when it was only assumed that it would be made. Episode Seven is assumed to be created and is already targeted with about four AfDs. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first one makes quite funny reading nowadays (the number of "never going to happen"s with the one "maybe we could redirect?" being shot down), though I agree it should have been deleted before the recent mass media coverage - a good example of when WP:CRYSTALBALL actually applies. --xensyriaT 01:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC) EDIT: 02:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that given the Episode III article was written when Wikipedia was barely a year old, and that WP:NFF as a guideline wasn't formed until 2006, would suggest that if Episode III were being released three years from today, that article would have been initially redirected. --Hmich176 (talk) 11:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see any reason for this to be deleted. There is no reason we can't have an article about a movie long before it's made, as long as it's received lots of coverage, and this one has. Zeromus1 (talk) 01:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was significant coverage about Star Trek into Darkness, Iron Man 3 and The Avengers, and those articles were redirected. Simple notability does not make an article necessary when it can fit under a better topic. --Hmich176 (talk) 11:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the Admin: please make a decision - We have now hundreds of lines of discussion and I don't think there is any hope that a new decisive argument will emerge. So I guess you have now the elements to decide. The only risk by keeping this thread ongoing is to see some editors getting angry or bitter and post some sentences he or she will later regret. 195.169.141.54 (talk) 11:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs are given 7 days minimum, not 3. You're just going to have to be patient.. pushing for an early resolution, possibly when a discussion favours one view more than another early on, would represent a bias. Seven days is required to give everyone a fair chance to comment, as in discussions such as this the "Randy" types, anti-deletionists, IP socks, and AfD hijackers will have got their opinions in as early as possible.. whatever their motives.. for fear of losing out. More experienced editors are likely to wait a little longer, weigh up the discussion, and comment in response to community feelings rather than their own personal opinion. The risk of an Admin being accused of hijacking an AfD and misrepresenting consensus is greater and more disruptive than a few minor disputes over the AfD itself. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 12:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't see any chance of this being deleted, so one could arguably SNOW close this. Whether to redirect or not can be handled by normal editing processes. Powers T 14:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the closing admin is thorough enough, they will see that not a single editor has made a convincing argument for "keep", or a reason to make an exception to clear, well-established policies and guidelines. Not sure how you could speedy close what, at worst, is a "no consensus"? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW is inapplicable here, as common sense rarely applies when mass fan-based support for an article overwhelms wiki-policy. This AfD is too hot for snow anyway. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 14:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's amazing how people don't think their opponents have made any convincing arguments.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? Isn't that the point of all debates, that each side finds the other unconvincing, regardless of the topic in hand? Ma®©usBritish{chat} 22:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was sarcasm. There's no point in Rob claiming that no editor has made a convincing argument for "keep", because it's just not persuasive from someone who clearly has a strong viewpoint on the issue. It adds to the noise, and may be anti-persuasive to someone who is tired of hearing one side reduce the noise-signal level.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coment You´re ignoring the fact that the movie is already in the first phase of production, so WP:Crystal Ball can´t be applied (because the film is a reality and not a future event)--Comet21 (talk) 12:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What? No. By definition a film is a series of still images which when they are passed past a projector gives the viewer the impression of movement, so not until at least two frames have been shot is there a film. What we have now is a plan or an idea for a film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consider it like a child. At the moment, mummy and daddy are trying for a baby. They certainly intend to have a baby, and really looking forward to having a baby. However, they probably won't start painting the nursery until the second trimester, because lots of things can happen between now and then, and, for now, it's certainly too soon to write the child's biography. It is not a child yet, it is just the idea of a child. However, you could write on mummy and daddy's pages that they are trying for a child... --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How are babies made daddy? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point: this discussion is degenerating to nonsensical one-liners, since nobody as any new idea or argument to bring. Admin, please close one way or another asap. 195.169.141.54 (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus". --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No sensible Admin would ever take an Anon IP request for early closure seriously, however good their intentions may seem. Please shut up and wait for the standard AfD period to run its course, instead of trying to force an early resolution without a valid reason, there have been no seriously disruptive or uncivil comments here worth intervening in, and many AfDs of this nature can run on longer than seven days if the nomination attracts enough interest. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 15:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Following your metaphor, this film is a fetus. It´s alive, it does exist. Perhaps it wont born, but it doesn´t mean that it wasn´t real.--Comet21 (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bad analogy, until filming begins there is no film. Period.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Either way, the page has been viewed over 185,000 times in the past three days. Just sayin. Light-jet pilot (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Just because an article is popular does not mean it is within the project scope". -Rob Sinden (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except, in this case the subject matter is within the project scope. Is it a popular or an unpopular article that's within the project scope? Popular. That was probably the point that user Light-jet pilot was trying to make. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point of WP:POPULARPAGE is to say that an article's popularity has no bearing on whether or not it is within the project scope. Achowat (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 4[edit]

  • Keep. I'm sure someone's already said what I'm going to say, but I thought I'd still put my thoughts here, even if they're reiterating what other people have said. I think this should obviously be kept, because it's been officially confirmed and already has a decent amount of information for the stage the film is at. I'm sure there will be more information over time, and it seems best to leave this article here to expand as more information comes. I don't think it should be redirected to "Star Wars sequel trilogy" either, because it sounds as though it is planned to be different from the way the sequel trilogy was originally planned to be. Besides, I'm sure this article has probably been popular recently, and will probably remain popular for a while. Alphius (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, no compelling arguments as to why this should be an exception to the relevant guideline at WP:NFF, and WP:POPULARPAGE too... --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it appeals to "Wikipedia does not have firm rules." - pillar 5. Even NFF has NFFExceptions. And even these guidelines are to be ruled by consensus. The redirect argument boils down to the simple wish to follow the NFF by rote, whereas there is a strong desire expressed by the keep eds that it will be a good topic. The topic has GNG and shows no signs of becoming non-notable. What it does not have, is a lot of content. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This does not appeal to WP:IAR. Just because an article will have a lot of content does not mean it needs to be written now. Just because an article passes notablitiy guidelines does not mean it needs to have it's own article at the current time. As I have already pointed out, other major movie articles were created as redirects upon the announcement of the movie. Wikipedia does not have firm rules; it operates under guidelines. But I have yet to see one person write something convincing enough that FFExceptions or IAR actually applies in this case. --Hmich176 (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then your whole argument is that Wikipedia should not exist unless it follows the guidelines strictly. Your argument is that NFF, when it says don't make an article, should over-ride basic GNG. We write project-specific guidelines to help articles into the encyclopedia, when basic GNG is not easy to demonstrate. That part is in NFF. But NFF, and I think uniquely, also has this other clause. It's like one of those omnibus bills in Congress and parliaments where you get to attach things that aren't properly in it. NFF does not over-ride basic GNG. And the Film project's guideline should not hold a veto. Do not interpret it that way. That's simply bureaucratic. I think that NFF's clause should not be in NFF. If you want to limit the proliferation of articles, that should be in Wikipedia guidelines, external to a project. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but if you want to argue whether or not NFF's clause should be in NFF, then take it to NFF. That's not an appropriate argument to make on this article. --Hmich176 (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep - Studio announced a movie, and with a cash-cow like Star Wars, it's not going to go away unless Disney hates making billions to recoup its investment in Lucasfilms (heck, the deal was contingent upon a new SW film). That red freaky looking admiral can't yell "IT'S A TRAAAAP!" on this one. But, I feel the article is well referenced and despite being a future project it meets the exceptions to the rule. I just hope episode vii doesn't suck as much as phantom menace. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Iron Man 3, Star Trek into Darkness and The Avengers are all "cash-cow type" films. They were all redriected as created or via AfD. There is no reason why this article should be treated any different. --Hmich176 (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sure the closing Admin will discount any votes by people who don't know who Admiral Ackbar is. Achowat (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - The amount of information that will be released in the coming days and weeks will give us more than enough information to keep this page. Also if you delete it someone else will recreate it and this will all start over again. 1916Walker987 (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First off, that's why the page should be redirected protected. Then it won't be recreated. Secondly, the movie is three years away. Coming days and weeks will more likely be coming months and years. The article should be recreated at a point either when principle filming has begun when castings are announced. --Hmich176 (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • So write the article when there's information released. There's probably not going to be anything substantial for months, and any assumption otherwise is just crystal-ball-gazing. Powers T 17:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and protect for now. IMHO really too soon, we have not more than a vague announcement but nothing about the film in itself. The "production" section contains infos already covered in the Star Wars sequel trilogy article. The plot section basically contains just some rumors and speculations. The article could be userfied at requested. Cavarrone (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 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 WP:INHERIT. Can be edited to remove content problems though. S.G.(GH) ping! 21:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)<[reply]
  • Keep Obviously Opaqueambiguity (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This AfD is an excellent example of why I no longer actively contribute to Wikipedia. On something as high-profile as this, something that will attract as much attention as this, if you want to demonstrate that nothing is more important than language-lawyering and deletionism on whatever pretext du jour then please be my guest and delete articles such as this one when they pop up and make the most anal-retentive stink you can make while doing so. It will help to drive more people away from Wikipedia. -- 173.74.208.113 (talk) 07:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I basically agree with you, but we do it not because it is easy. As long as it is this massive consensus-driven machine, then I think reason will prevail. When people simply use the shortcuts, and don't discuss, it can be frustrating. Even if it is redirect, it is not a tragedy. Many editors will still contribute to make it a good article. I don't think eds. really hate each other. Wikipedia will remain open. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Star Wars sequel trilogy, where its already mentioned there. Can't anyone understand WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:TOOSOON and WP:NFF?? 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! Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No way is it merely an idea. You are ignoring the evidence. When a company commits $4B to something, then I am certain something will come to fruition. Or else it will be a massive meltdown. I wrote an article called Phoenix Coyotes bankruptcy. It's not finished, and can't be until certain events occur. But the article covers a lot. And I would expect this article to be as interesting an topic. We don't put speculation into the article. If we did, it would be very large already. We are sticking strictly to the facts as presented. I think that is why it is small. Not to lack of notability. I think the argument is more what is better style. The film project does not want these articles to be separate this early into the game. But there is no evidence to this point that it will not come to pass. We regularly create articles on topics before they fully come to pass. Future sports events and seasons. The film project objects to this, and somewhat uniquely. We should strictly be going by GNG and only using NFF's prohibition for movies that cannot demonstrate GNG. I think there was an attempt in NFFExceptions to somewhat address this, but I do not know the history and maybe cannot explain that in detail. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said elsewhere, if you want to change WP:NFF, go to that article and argue it. Don't just keep saying you want to ignore it because the films you champion are too important to be limited by it. No one has committed $4 bn to making this film, that was to buy Lucas' entire empire, which is a nice cash cow even if they never make a new movie. Future films are all pure speculation and hype. They haven't got a budget, not a single person signed up to write, produce, direct, let alone act. It's just a name "Star Wars VII" and nothing else now and may never be more. Maybe Disney will do a prequel to THX-1138 instead. Barsoomian (talk) 12:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep so obvious I can't believe it's being discussed Seriously? Agree with above - high profile, will be much news about this in days to come, why on earth would it be deleted? Get your thumbs out.68.144.172.8 (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect for now. While it is likely to go ahead, there is not enough concrete information now to justify a standalone article. A brief summary in Star Wars sequel trilogy can suffice.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or move to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Star Wars Episode VII. I think that there is enough information about the film to keep the article, but if consensus can't be reached as to whether it should be kept or redirected, it should be moved to the article incubator. Hadger 16:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubation is a good idea and could be a good compromise between "keep" and "redirect" votes. Cavarrone (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incabation is fine, but the information is still valid to include in an article on a broader topic.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL pbp 17:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's sources and it's as inevitable as the Olympics.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (IAR) and per the rationales presented in this discussion by User:MaxVeers, User:Niado and User:Alphius. Also, WP:NFF is a guideline, whereas IAR is a policy. In this unique instance, IAR has more gravitas compared to the former, in my opinion. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WP:NFF is a guideline, but so is WP:N itself. There are exceptions to these guidelines, the requirements for which are not met by this article. Just because WP:IAR is a policy, doesn't mean it's more relevant to this discussion, because "Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. If you want to ignore all rules, give us a reason why, as per WP:COMMON, for example. Coppaar (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Comment! I do not see how WP:IAR can be placed as secondary to WP:PG just because of Only 1 Line. That Line can change a lot of how we all think, and that is why WP:IAR still exist. In this Discussion I suggest we take it into consideration, ignore the policies and guidelines for now because we are not going to spend weeks on this Discussion.--Bumblezellio (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with IAR as long as you can justify it. Read WP:IAR?. Most of the keep arguments revolve around WP:FAVORITE, WP:ILIKEIT, WP:INTHENEWS, and of course, WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. You can't just say Star Wars VII is like the Olympics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coppaar (talk • contribs) 18:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC) [7][reply]
I don't see why we can't; I see little probability that it won't come into existence. Whereas an earthquake or a Georgia-Russian war could stop the 2014 Summer Olympics in their tracks, yet we have an article on it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A Wikipedia article about a film that will see a theatrical release in 2015 is not implausible. When I check for a cool movie to watch at the cinema, I usually start researching on Wikipedia a year ahead of time. With video games, I usually find out what they are about six months before they're released at my local Walmart. So waiting three years just to see another Star Wars film is just another thing I look forward to in life; even if I have to wade through some mediocre shit that comes out between now and 2015. GVnayR (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've personally always felt WP:NFF was far too strict anyway. In certain cases with very high-profile films there tends to be enough information to create an article well before it actually starts filming, and if the film does end up getting canceled there's nothing stopping us from turning it into a redirect later. I suppose what I'm saying is although the page might be better served as a redirect at the moment given there's hardly any real info yet (although it's somehow grown quite a bit already), I don't think we should necessarily have to wait until filming begins to recreate it. The production is going to be getting a lot of press between now and then. --DocNox (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of the most high-profile franchises of all time and the article is already well sourced on several aspects of the film. Even if the film were to be cancelled a new wave of sources would flood the market as to why it was cancelled. As long as regular editing using reliable sources is followed the article seems fine. Insomesia (talk) 12:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 5[edit]

  • Keep The article underwent drastic changes within the last four days of being nominated (diff from then to now), so most "delete" / "redirect" !votes are no longer valid. WP:CRYSTAL 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: WP:NFF 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 WP:NFF when it meets WP:GNG, 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 SoWhy 13:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The majority of what the article now pertains to is what should be at Star Wars sequel trilogy. Almost the entire Background section is about a possible sequel trilogy and contains no specifics about this potential film. The Plot section is mostly speculative material, even though the speculation is supported by sources: "Episode VII is expected to be an entirely original story...", "Pollock expects the screenplays...", " Zahn's trilogy had been speculated...". Just because the article is expanded does not mean the previous votes are no longer valid (and frankly that is insulting). I am not advocating for deleting information, most of this information is notable and applicable for a potential sequel trilogy (which already has an article). However, because there has been no actual production of Episode VII, merely an announcement, it is still too soon to have an article for it. BOVINEBOY2008 13:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not insulting to point out that most !votes that are based on the state of the article four days ago are no longer valid, since the problems they mention do not exist anymore; for example, your argument of "there is literally only one story" above simply is no longer correct, since there have been more news stories in the days afterwards that cover it (same goes for arguments like "All of the news is about the deal" and "nascent story about a potential movie"). Saying "too soon" is valid when it comes to subjects where notability might change but as users said above, the notability of this subject will not vanish even if it's not produced because the announcement alone prompted a huge amount of coverage and any cancellation will certainly generate more. On a side note, sources denying something can be useful as well. For example, the fact that Timothy Zahn was not approached about this film is notable since his works have been considered the definitive continuation of the saga for quite some time by a lot of sources. Same goes for the information that it's going to be an original story because that rules out an adaptation of a novel / comic book / etc. I think there are many reasons to apply WP:NFF to planned films but I also think there are a lot of good reasons that it shouldn't be applied in this case. Regards SoWhy 14:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "the problems they mention do not exist anymore"? So, principal photography has started? That's the "problem" than means this article should be redirected or deleted, and why the people who read and cited WP:NFF voted to delete. The newer material is 99% speculation and gossip, and rehashing speculation and gossip from 30 years ago. No one is committed to doing anything. Nothing has been ruled out. No one has been hired to write the script, direct, act, or serve sandwiches at the craft table. Nothing has happened except Disney bought LucasFilm. Even if it was going ahead full steam, it still isn't notable until principal photography starts. It will never be cancelled offically, but it could go into development hell and be "three years away" for another 20 years, if Lucas gets stubborn about something, if Disney tightens its belt, etc. Barsoomian (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. The fact that so many people are talking about it MAKES IT NOTABLE. What does the word "notable" mean to you, anyway? :0) 68.144.172.8 (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)"So, principal photography has started?" Who cares? If a topic meets WP:GNG, WP:NFF is irrelevant. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and incidentally, it meets all the criteria for Notability listed in your wikilink. Perhaps you need to look up the dictionary meaning of the word, or even read the article you linked to, before throwing it around in conversation? Just a suggestion. :-)68.144.172.8 (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, WP:NFF is totally irrelevant? Good to know. I'll just go and delete it now it so no one else will be confused by the fact that it contradicts what they want to happen. Barsoomian (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Barsoomian: I'm not sure which part of "If a topic meets WP:GNG, WP:NFF is irrelevant" that is difficult to understand, but having to rely on a Straw man argument (i.e. WP:NFF is totally irrelevant and should be deleted) underscores the weakness of your position. The fact remains that this topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and none of the !voters have even attempted to demonstrate otherwise. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any amount of "coverage" doesn't make for notability. There isn't any "coverage" about the film going into production, because it hasn't. All the "coverage" is speculation. As it has been for the last 30 years. Lucas could have made it any time in the last 30 years. Now it's Disney that might make it sometime in the next 30 years. That's the only change. And it should be noted in Star Wars sequel trilogy where all the other speculation on that subject going back to 1976 is. Barsoomian (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the information that people are using to meet WP:GNG has little to do with "Star Wars Episode VII". It is mostly "Star Wars sequel trilogy" information. There is little known about the actual (potential) film other than Disney has announced they plan on making it and certain people are not going to be involved. So while the sequel trilogy makes WP:GNG, the seventh film does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NFF. BOVINEBOY2008 16:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The "improvements" to this article have led to a terrible content fork. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There should probably be a rule that those opposed to an article not edit it. It only ends up in an edit war. Let the proponents go with it, give it some time and examine some results. We should not set impossible targets when an article is only a stub. What message does it send? Are we custodians, guards? Or are we creative persons? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's totally insane, as a minute's refection should make clear, even to you. Only certified fanboys should be allowed to edit any article? A good recipe for a neutral point of view. What should have been the process was to expand the sequel trilogy article, and if another film actually went into production, it could be split off then. It's not an article on a new subject that just needs time to do research to flesh it out, it's an article on a subject that only was imagined a week ago and there is nothing to write about now. Who was it that said that "Wikipedia is not a newspaper"? And whether we're "creative persons" or not, Wikipedia isn't the place to express your creativity. Barsoomian (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the police men eds. have an NPOV. What you want are contributors, not cops, not rule-quoters. Really, Bars, I've not read anything positive or a contribution. From what I've seen you edit, you are more about removing content. Not that that your role isn't needed, but it is still a policing role. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a "policeman editor". It's just we the only overlap in our interests is things you're passionate about and I'm not. I create plenty of stuff elsewhere. I disagree with a few of the MoS and copyright "rules". I've argued against them, but I have to abide by them. But NFF is sensible. I don't argue for rules I don't believe are valid. And I'm not a deletionist. I don't look for things to delete, but I have a low tolerance for people who think that Wikipedia is a form of voodoo, that they can make something in the real world happen by pretending it exists and writing articles about it. Even that I might ignore, but bullshit articles spread their hooks all over as fans link articles about imaginary things into articles about real ones, including some I watch which is usually how I become aware of them, and in checking them out discover they're just wish fulfillment. Barsoomian (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I don't want to assign guilt. You're 'right in front of me.' Let me make it more general. When someone takes on the role of policing editor, then they remove content. I've seen that. Not just you. It becomes a tug of war. I think we can agree that it is unproductive. There are those who add 'cruft' (and other assorted epithets) that is inappropriate. But if we leave it in, we get the complete picture of what we are discussing. We can see that it is crap at this point, and is just puffed it up to make it look more important. Taking it out though, when we are discussing it, is trying to make a point too. That there is nothing to say. Like a pendulum, neither end point of the arc is neutral. You don't write good prose by using the least absolute number of words, but the least number of words to express complete thoughts. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WOW! This is pretty incredible, as it goes against everything Wikipedia stands for. Especially seeing as the same editor was complaining against sensible "rules" like WP:NFF and "rules based arguments"... --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've abided by NFF. Bars can attest to that. I've contributed to another article that went against NFF, and I've worked on the content in the redirect, and my content is based on sources. I know the rules. I have over 50,000 edits here on Wikipedia. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not get into how many edits you may or may not have on here. This isn't a sensible route for this discussion to head. But it's good that you understand WP:NFF - can you demonstrate why you think we should make an exception for this article? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's short-hand. You don't make 50,000 edits if you've been kicked off for not following the rules. So, when I argue one way, I try to give it the best argument/opinion I can give. It's not simple contradiction. Put me in the spectrum of those who want Wikipedia to be open, and would give more leniency than those who want to abide by the rules strictly. Let the eds. hang themselves. If they write crap, then we have something to judge. Let's start with a couple of points that really should not be in dispute. The topic has general notability, and that the film will be made. Yes, there is a possibility it won't be made. But that possibility is extremely small. The large purchase price, the announcement of the film as part of the purchase agreement. There is a lot riding on this. Add to that the corporations involved. I consider them trust-worthy. (not like Argo) Now, on to the content argument. Even some of the content you removed, which I agree may not belong in Wikipedia, was properly in the legacy article. And I see the legacy article getting even more interesting than it is. But I dislike the style of putting topics into the 'master' article so to speak. While fan-boys can get all excited and put in infoboxes, etc., the best place to follow the production and development of this movie is in its own article. I like that in Wikipedia we can centralize and summarize in one article here, the collected works of the internet on the topic. Thirdly, I believe that we should not attack stubs. What kind of impression does that give to those external to Wikipedia? I think that those in favour of a redirect really should let the attention die down, give it a few months, and examine the evidence then. You're much more likely to be persuasive then. Of course, you can argue that it is too early to have the article, but we go through that discussion as part of discussing CRYSTAL aspects, and I believe there is no need to bounce the topic content around the formatting, when it is so highly likely to proceed to fruition. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the arguments you've made here are conveniently listed in WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Notability fallacies. Barsoomian (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We discussed ATA before. Basically a pet peeve list. I agreed it's not widely-read, so I read it. :-) I'm not disputing that we are in a case of conflicting guidelines. You like to point to things, remember we work by consensus. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Not widely read"?? Anyway, it seems you want to ignore precedent and make everyone argue every point from first principles. There is a reason WP debates use acronyms: the same things come up over and over, and it's just simpler to "point to" the well documented and polished refutation of the argument you want to make, that you present as if it was a brand new thought, rather than spend hours explaining it; especially when it's pretty obvious you won't be persuaded anyway, so I can "point to" the article and you can ignore it, thus saving both of us time. Barsoomian (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I especially liked WP:JUSTAPOLICY in ATA. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For a one-liner, WP:ITSCRUFT Barsoomian (talk) 03:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Zing. I don't know why but I read ATA seriously the first time. I guess I was angry or maybe the serious tone of the lead misled me. But, really it's a funny essay that I wish I had read earlier. This time I laughed out loud. It's a greatest hits collection. So many of the Wiki guidelines are really dry reading, so I was not expecting it, I guess. I've been a computer programmer most of my adult life, but I've never used the word cruft. Fan cruft is not a neutral term and I don't think you need to use it. It's pejorative and elitist. The term originates from left-over code, but fan cruft was deliberately written. If it's bad, it's bad, you don't need an extra rule or extra insult. I usually just say "it needs work." That's my short-hand. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forceful Keep per the excellent keep votes above, and per GNG, IAR and Crystal, which easily outweigh NFF. Crystal favors a keep as it allows exceptions like the 2020 Olympics. As others have said, this film is just as inevitable. Disney paid $4Bn for the rights to make these films, they have a market cap of 90$Bn, nothing is going to stop them. Even if the impossible did happen, there would be dozens of sources about it just from a commercial perspective alone, never mind the huge cultural impact, we'd just need a rename. Opposed to a redirect due to the tens of millions of fans who may want to read a dedicated article. It would be unencyclopedic not to provide it. Deletionists! This is not the target you're looking for. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the arguments of those who want to redirect boil down to follow NFF slavishly. Is there no other prop to that argument? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's enough. But throw in WP:CRYSTAL if you want. Didn't you learn anything from Godzilla (2012 film)? Or Jurassic Park IV (hint: they're both redirects). Barsoomian (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, in the case of the Godzilla film, the argument went in favour of keep once, then it went in favour of redirect the second time. So, it always seems to boil down to majority not-votes, not on the basis of rules. So, I would say, when there is wide discussion, the majority of eds. go for keep, but when it is dominated by the rule-followers, then it goes the other way. Maybe I should rephrase it like this. Is there no non-rule-based argument to delete the article? The article meets the GNG, enough to keep the article topic. There is no evidence that the production will not complete. The film is financed, has a story, has distribution, etc. No-one wants to delete the content, only influence how it should be presented. The argument to redirect is based on rules, not really on the quality of the presentation of the topic. To keep the article, I contend, is that the topic will be presented in the best manner to the benefit of Wikipedia. What is the benefit to Wikipedia to force a redirect to a sub-section of an existing article, whose base topic is larger in scope than this one film? And there is no rules-based argument to support that. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A "non-rules based argument"? Okay, you won't like it either: The article is pure fan wank. Nothing has happened except a lot of hot air. Hollywood specialises in hype. You can't believe anything anyone says they will do until they actually do it. But I guess that's just a restatement of NFF; sorry. Barsoomian (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I much prefer you get to the point than hold anything back. :-) Seriously, too many times people simply use the rules shorthands. What you've just said is much more useful to the discussion. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It happens again and again. Deletionists are relentless. If they dont get their way on their first attack, they rarely respect the communities decision. Instead they'll often try again and again , hoping that eventually not enough sensible voters will turn up to save the article from destruction. This is different though. My Sunday League 2014 cup is not notable enough for an article, but that doesnt mean deletionists can destroy 2014 FIFA World Cup , just because they're both 2014 football competitions. As you say there's no benefit to our readers or to the encyclopedia in trying to treat a global phenomena such as Star Wars like its a regular film. ( I should say for non UK editors that Sunday League is where regular adults not up for playing professionally can play semi competitive soccer. )FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on IAR and repeated arguments: I'm fine with WP:IAR as long as you can justify it. Read WP:IAR?. 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 WP:NFF or whether the WP:GNG trumps it. Most of the keep arguments revolve around WP:FAVORITE, WP:ILIKEIT, WP:INTHENEWS, and of course, WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. You can't just say Star Wars VII is like the Olympics and claim that makes it pass WP:CRYSTAL, because it's not actually all that much like the Olympics. So if you think it passes WP:CRYSTAL, 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 WP:BIGNUMBER and you probably should. In my opinion WP:NFF is an excellent guideline to follow here, because it is far more specific than WP:CRYSTAL or WP:GNG, but that's just my opinion and I understand if you disagree. So back to the beginning: WP:IAR 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: WP:COMMONSENSE. Thank you. Coppaar (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not simply IAR. We have a problem with conflicting guidelines. The article passes GNG and it passes CRYSTAL as argued above. It is you who seems to reject the arguments made. Ok, so -you- are not persuaded. Others disagree. What you are suggesting is just "repeat what you said in ways I understand or will allow to be valid". Wikipedia, is at its core, driven by consensus. What we have here is a lack of consensus on what to do. It's a valid debate. How to cover the topic in a way that is encyclopedic. We can discuss how best to cover the topic, on specific content within the trilogy article and the episode article. So provide some constructive debate. I would propose to leave the article as is, and revisit the topic in a few months' time. Let's see what happens. If they intend to release it for 2015, casting, directing and screenplay will need to be do fairly quickly. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Episode 7 does not pass notability. All the articles have been about the purchase of Lucasfilm, and notability is not inherited. There has been no independent coverage of either the sequels or indeed, Episode 7 itself. It is a simply a WEIGHT issue; obviously the Star Wars franchise is going to be developed further, but the time for creating specific articles about specific films is when such films are confirmed and we have specific details about them. The article as it stands is mostly historical stuff about a potential sequel trilogy (prior to 2012) and about the purchase of Lucasfilm, which isn't the subject of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Betty, you are just trying to make the bar higher because you disagree with the establishment of the article. It was announced four days ago. I doubt that you attack every stub being created in this way. You give the author(s) a chance. I once started an article on the Minto Skating Club, which has trained several world champions. Not fifteen minutes after I started the stub, I had to defend against a prod. We should not be this way at Wikipedia. This is the very opposite of open-ness. Sometimes I think people spend their time simply doing clean up at Wikipedia. I think they develop what I call the 'policeman syndrome' - seeing every offence in a heightened way. Every stub starts out without full proof shown of notability. A stub starts with a paragraph. This article's topic started with an announcement delivered around the world. Two very prominent organizations coming together. Two organizations already well-covered by reliable sources. Their plans have been the focus of thousands of articles. And the sequels are just part of the story. Do you want to pick and choose which are specifically about the sequels? How could you possibly do this in any coherent way in 7 days (the period of this AfD) Would you wish this task upon yourself? You even agree that the franchise is going to be developed further, so why are you fighting this? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 01:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No...I am trying to keep the bar where it is. This film isn't any more likely to occur than Bond 24, but we don't have an article about that yet, simply because we don't have any details of the production that are unique to it. The bottom line is that there is absolutely nothing in the article that cannot be catered for already by pre-existing articles, and it is likely to remain that way for months. Betty Logan (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I recently expanded the article.[8] 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 WP:GNG, so it seems reasonable to keep to allow it to expand. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me list all the facts in the article: Disney bought Lucasfilm and say they will make new Star Wars films... and that's all. Barsoomian (talk) 08:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a newspaper (or police report). Even if it were, newspapers include reaction and history to a topic. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. There is one fact in the article, and the rest is reaction and speculation about it. Barsoomian (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or redirect. Per WP:NFF. 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? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. Lucas said in the 80s and 90s that there would be a sequel trilogy, then there wasn't. They said there wasn't going to be an Indy 4 and then there was. They said there was going to be a fifth one but that isn't happening now I don't think. The only way this film will be fully on than off, is once a director and writer and possibly stars get announced. Charlr6 (talk) 07:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep - Even if the film is never made, which is extremely doubtful, it is notable and culturally significant enough to have its own entry. A film does not have to be produced to have its entry on Wikipedia if it is notable enough, and plenty of cancelled films have their own article on Wikipedia. Hell, The fake movie Return Of The Jedi was pretending to be while shooting has its own entry and no one's complaining about that.Happy Evil Dude (talk) 11:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. Again. If the film is not made, it would only be notable in the scope of the Star Wars sequel trilogy article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Yet again, another argument that has nothing to do with notability. The only issue here is whether or not this topic has received significant coverage by secondary reliable sources. There are literally hundreds, if not, thousands of sources for this article which clearly establish its notablity.[9] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, this does not "clearly" establish notability: "It takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage". This is just the next chapter in the wider saga of the Star Wars sequel trilogy until more is known. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't routine news coverage. This is a multi-billionare deal and one of the most popular movie franchises of all-time. A Googe News Search turns up over 40,000 sources: "Star Wars" "Episode 7" OR "Episode VII" -wikipedia. If 40,000+ sources doesn't satisify WP:GNG, nothing does. As I pointed out earlier, this article easily passes WP:GNG and the only thing this AfD will accomplish is wasting dozens of editor's time that could have been spent improving other articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
40,000 routine news articles is still only routine coverage. It's not about numbers, but depth. What "significant coverage" has this movie garnered. What encyclopedic information (the kind that appears at, to pick six movies at random, the other 6 Star Wars movies) is covered in those 40,000 results? Achowat (talk) 14:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)None of those sources say much more than "Disney has bought Lucasfilm. There will be more Star Wars films". Everything else is speculation. These sources do not constitute "significant coverage". See WP:GOOGLEHITS. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Achowat: I'm sorry, but your opinion has no basis in policy. WP:GNG states:
Can you please indicate which sentences in the article that are based on original research? If you cannot do this, your argument fails. Of course, you are free to argue that WP:GNG is wrong, but this isn't the venue to change policy. I suggest you take your arguments to the talk page of GNG and get the editors there to change GNG. Until you can get the editors there to change GNG, this article easily passes GNG. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Rob Sinden: See above. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 6[edit]

  • Ignore All Rules! ^v^ But seriously, if this Discussion continues with arguement regarding Policies and Guidelines of Wikipedia then I suggest you really have to ignore them by force if you have to. We are here to make a new Encyclopedic Article, not to bicker around like 2 enormous groups of fans! This is beginning to feel like a Religious War.--Bumblezellio (talk) 10:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IAR is intended to help you improve Wikipedia. Without a reasonable justification as to how the inclusion of this article improves Wikipedia, we should be following the guidelines. No-one has yet put forward a case for making an exception to the established guidelines. You can't ignore all the rules just because it suits you. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IAR is what you can say when an action is clearly, to EVERYONE, correct, despite technically infringing a rule. It's meant to deal with exceptional cases that were not imagined when the rules were written. But that is not the case here. WP:NFF was written in response to articles exactly like this, about films announced but not in production. It's certainly not agreed by everyone that the article is exceptional. Barsoomian (talk) 13:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a case of IAR. Get over it. There are conflicting guidelines here. (I know -you- don't think so.) The topic passes GNG and CRYSTAL. It is of widespread interest and the eds. are fairly united that the topic belongs in Wikipedia. Really, the only debate is where to place the content, either in the trilogy or its own article. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to Bumblezellio, who specifically asserted IAR. So tell him to "get over it", not me. And the production of the film, which is what this discussion is about, certainly is crystal balling. Barsoomian (talk)
No, as a standalone article, it fails WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL as demonstrated above. However, it would be acceptable as part of a wider article discussing the sequel trilogy, as there is sustained coverage on this. It is only in the context of wider discussion of the sequel trilogy that this meets WP:GNG. WP:GNG and WP:NFF do not conflict. I think it is common sense to read them in tandem and make a sensible judgement based on the spirit of these guidelines, rather than to think that one trumps the other and try and find a loophole for inclusion. If we consider WP:NFF, the subject-specific guideline for future films, no one can dispute that this article clearly fails to meet these requirements. If we consider its spirit, it mentions that we can include on other articles about the subject matter - the sensible approach until more is known. As most of the information included at this article is a content fork from Star Wars sequel trilogy, most of which was added here in order to try to fluff out the article to make it seem inclusion-worthy, the common-sense approach is to merge. By following the spirit of WP:NFF, we improve Wikipedia by avoiding content forks, fluff and speculation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It has received significant coverage (21 different sources) from reliable sources independent of the subject. That is the GNG. The majority of the sources at least mention that Disney is going to make a new Star Wars movie, and there are sources indicating that Star Wars VII is the working title. The sources are reliable and unconnected to the subject. It meets GNG.
It is totally reasonable to expect that the movie will be made. It could be delayed, but we'll either be in line for it in 2015 or the delay itself will become notable (see Development of Duke Nukem Forever for example of such a fiasco). WP:CRYSTAL certainly does apply to Star Wars 8 and 9, but not to 7. The purpose of WP:NFF is to prevent stuff that like the unfortunately abandoned Dark Tower movie or sequel to Mongol, which died without anyone but me and the producers caring, from getting articles.
And would you please point to the speculation in the article? Everything in it are things that are confirmed: that Lucas has some involvement with the story, and that the people responsible for the movie have said it will be original story, etc, etc. It does not say "my friends want Thrawn, but I don't really care," it simply states what information has been confirmed and nothing more. No speculation. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand why such an Article must be deleted or redirected if it fails to reach the theaters. Why do we have Articles for cancelled games like Sonic Crackers and Megaman universe? I know that this Article is breaching WP:NFF but we can excuse that policy for WP:FFEXCEPTIONS which again points towards WP:IAR.--Bumblezellio (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article has been expanded way beyond what I had created last week. The article passes notability guidelines, as the coverage that it received in terms of it being created is more than enough. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage of the article's creation was notable and justified its creation? Wonderful. Barsoomian (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the movie's release in three years. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did your crystal ball also tell you who would be starring in it? -- but no spoilers, please. Barsoomian (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Delete This is simple, it isn't about whether or not it's notable, it obviously is (IMO), but until "confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography" it fails WP:NFF. 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. — Jdcollins13 (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about cancelled films that have never had a single frame shot that yet have their own article on Wikipedia?Happy Evil Dude (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Star Wars sequel trilogy for all that already. Barsoomian (talk) 03:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think the relevant clause remains - unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines - which this production surely is. This content is needed somewhere on Wikipedia and it makes the most sense to house it here until one of two things happens: (1) Disney again resells the rights or cancels the production which then means the background is merged to the larger narrative of the series or (2) The production is confirmed in various ways. I think that having the article here will minimize rumors and further needless content creep in other articles. There are plenty of people watching for this content so the issue can be revisited in a year or so if there has been no new reporting on the project, which is doubtful that no one will be talking about this. Insomesia (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"This content is needed somewhere". Barsoomian (talk)
Yes, so a merge at best is still not any delete. I think a keep makes sense with provisions for revisiting the issue in 6-9 months if no sources have discussed the content since then. Let's stop the drama please. Insomesia (talk) 04:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I said redirect in my original comment. The problem with letting articles like this stay as an independent article is that it then gets treated the same as a real film, and is linked all over WP, in lists of films and related articles, alongside real films. That's how I become aware of such articles. As for "stop the drama"; yes, just redirect it and stop the drama. If the film ever goes into production we'll have an article then, two years before it's released. There's no hurry. Barsoomian (talk) 04:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is extremely unlikely that Disney spent $4 billion just to cancel this movie, but even if it did, canceling such a major project would itself be notable. Duke Nukem Forever and Chinese Democracy were notable years before they were released, and would have been notable even if they hadn't been released. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, if it's cancelled we can do an article about that, then. But it would never be explicitly cancelled, they'd just put it back on hold, as it has been since the 1980s. And this "four billion dollars" being recited like Doctor Evil; Disney didn't pay $4b for the rights to make SW7. That was for LucasFilm, Skywalker Sound etc. Lucas' whole empire. That's a cash cow if they never make a new movie. Barsoomian (talk) 03:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Not only is this election day in the US, but today is when some luckless admin has to read all this and make a decision on this AfD, which has at least as much blind partisanship involved in the other campaign. Looking forward to the result, and the inevitable appeals whichever way it goes. Barsoomian (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, per BDD and WP:IAR. Good luck. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 07:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Star_Wars_Episode_VII_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1187862732"