Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek 2 (2013 film)


 * 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 keep. WJBscribe (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Star Trek 2 (2013 film)

 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Prematurely created article. Direct contravention of policy guideline at WP:NFF which states "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. 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. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun." Any pertinent information can therefore be included at Star Trek (film) or Star Trek (film series). Rob Sinden (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. This is ridiculous. We've had this tango twice before. The Lone Ranger i understood because it got shelved soon afterward. This is a well-sourced and well-discussed film. There is a filming date cited in the article, which is in two months. There is a bounty of sources that confirm this film is happening. You constantly cite WP:NFF. That is for films that are announced and hasn't got alot of news stories that aid in it's notability. If i created this article when it was first announced for release in 2012, yea, i would have understood why you would redirect it. But now, they've begun casting rumours, they're scouting locations, and there are new stories on the film each day. I spent two hours digging deep through clusters of stories about this project, so this meets WP:GNG. It's notable. Just look at sources like this, now why would they be announcing what format of filming they would use if there was a slight possibility this wouldn't happen? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 15:48 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand WP:NFF. It is not "for films that are announced and hasn't got alot of news stories that aid in it's notability" - it directly applies in this case. All the casting rumours, etc can be included in the "Sequel" section at Star Trek (film) or at Star Trek (film series) until filming commences. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I implore you to look at these, all those sources, and you think this isn't a notable film? And i'll analyze WP:NFF a little more while you look at WP:GNG, which it clearly passes. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:04 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not about the number of references - there are no special circumstances here which mean we should not follow WP:NFF which says "Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available". WP:NFF also states "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" - this is what you are doing. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Would it help any if i moved this to my userspace (which surely wil be recreated if i do) or to Star Trek 2 (film project) (per WP:FILMPROJECT)? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:12 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No - film project articles are not accepted policy, and to me seem like a way to cirumvent WP:NFF. I understand the use of WP:FILMPROJECT in exceptional cases - where there is so much information that it can't be housed elsewhere - but this is not the case here. Userfying is fine though...  --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I assure you this is an exception for FILMPROJECT. I'm concerned about the article being recreated if i do userfy it. It's happened when i created The Three Stooges and Skyfall, the articles got recreated while the articles i userfied got forgotten. This is well-sourced and very close to filming. If it was Indiana Jones 5 and i created it because i heard it's now announced, i would grok the reasoning of why it was redirected. But here, when the article constitutes a vast amount of confirmed activity, is when i get upset. It's frustrating and infuriating when an article you devote alot of time on is redirected, or when you userfy it, it's recreated, and when you inform people "I created this already", they excuse theirselves by stating "This is a better article." Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:24 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Whilst I can appreciate your frustrations, this isn't really relevant to the point here. And perhaps this is a reason not to userfy, but to include information "in articles about its subject material" as per WP:NFF, so that when the time comes, it can be split to its own article.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand why you use WP:NFF as reasoning, but i always felt if a topic has obtained enough media coverage and discussion from those involved, it deserves, no, warrants a seperate article. There are now 30 reliable sources on the article confirming the project is essentially all ready to go. As before, filming has a set start date (January 15, if anyone's wondering). And again, i got hot under the collar when The Lone Ranger got the nom, but it got shelved and is now in User:MichaelQSchmidt's userspace. Star Trek 2 begins in a month and a half. Hell, it could start filming tomorrow, it's that close. If it was to begin filming 7 months after an article for it is created, yes, WP:NFF would come into effect for me. But here, it's too close to filming to still be considered unnotable. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:36 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NFF exists for a reason. This is an established guideline, and a good one.  You say the film could start shooting tomorrow.  It could also get cancelled tomorrow.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Very unlikely. WP:NFF exists to prevent actual premature articles from being created. This isn't prematurely made, it's basically on standby waiting for filming to begin, and when it does, we could be able to add a Filming section to the article to talk about it. Remember when we had this similar talk at Man of Steel? I created it in March, whereas filming wouldn't commence until August. Here, i created this article this month, November, and filming begins in January, again only a month and a half away. Man of Steel had a 5 month wait to begin filming and others found it met the guidelines for an article. But for now, our discussion has already took a huge amount of space on the discussion, let us wait for some outside opinions. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:47 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:BEFORE. Alternatives to deletion, like merging to the first movie's page, exist. These should have been discussed at the talk page before the deletion was considered. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So, rather than voting "keep", you actually favour an alternative? I'm confused by your input here?  What alternatives would you propose?  --Rob Sinden (talk)
 * He was perhaps addressing that guideline encourages discussion of one of the multiple alternatives before sending to deletion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and retitle to "Star Trek" (2013 film). The movie itself is notable and will happen, per Robsinden. However, no title has been released, and it is not the second installment in the franchise. Joefridayquaker (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that confuse people into thinking the 2009 film is being remade? What about Star Trek 2 (film project) or, since the series uses Roman numerals, whatever number it is in the film series? And actually, it is the second installment of the new series. Rusted AutoParts</i> (talk) 20:18 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If this article survives the AfD, it should definitely be renamed. No-one has any idea what this film will actually be called (another reason why WP:NFF is a good policy!)  How about "Untitled Star Trek proposed sequel" or something.  Maybe a title will be confirmed when the film actually goes into production. --Rob Sinden (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Star Trek XII (12 in roman numerals). <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> (talk) 12:48 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Look, the topic has plenty of coverage. The fight over "film" vs "film project" belongs in an RfC, not an AfD. There's no question in my mind that the topic meets the WP:GNG for a standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 23:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Why does everyone choose to ignore WP:NFF?  Maybe this policy needs to be rewritten in order to accommodate speculative articles like this one.  And why not WP:CRYSTAL while we're at it.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not being ignored, it's just that this film is notable to remain seperate. WP:NFF should be put at full force at things like Big Eyes, as i've shown you. That has casting, but no production discussions or anything leading out of Rope of Silicon. Star Trek 2 has received alot of coverage, passing WP:GNG. WP:CRYSTAL is predicting when a film will begin production, but it surpasses that as there's a source for when it begins filming. Hell, WP:CRYSTAL even state "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> (talk) 3:24 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you read the wording of WP:NFF, it directly applies to this article. I'm not sure why people think that "their article" should be exempted from this guideline. Maybe it's the same mentality as when people write "first post" on a forum entry. With regard to your comment on the wording in WP:CRYSTAL which states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place", I bring your attention (yet again) to that in WP:NFF which states "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".  Just because a future filming date is planned, doesn't mean the film exists!  --Rob Sinden (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It does exist, it is being made, and there is plenty of coverage proving it. I pretty sure at this time Paramount Pictures wouldn't scrap one of their high-profile projects due to budget or director issues, Paramount began financing before Abrams even signed on! That guideline, in my opinion, should be altered to which films that are announced or haven't begun pre-production shouldn't be given a seperate article. This film, currently, was one of the most talked about this week, due to the announcement of it's release date. It's happening and it's notable. And if that "first post" remark means that i create articles to be first, that's wrong. I'm battling this fiercely due to this occuring several times. Each article i make always faces deletion because "it hasn't begun filming yet". Star Trek is one of Paramount's crown jewels, why would they cancel that? <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> (talk) 3:37 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is generally accepted that a film does not physically exist until it starts shooting. Hence WP:NFF. Everything else you just said is pure speculation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 03:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahh... but speculation is allowed on Wikipedia, as policy specifically instructs that such may be indeed be discussed as long as properly sourced and not involving original research. You even concede as much in your nomination when you recommend places where the information might be placed. What we have in WP:NFF is a portion of a parent SNG that seeks to prevent premature and poorly-sourced articles about things unlikley to happen... but even IT grants that exceptions might be created if coverage of a planned film's production process itself can be determined notable per WP:GNG. SNGs do not "trump" the GNG. The GNG does not "trump" the SNGs. Failing one does not mean the other is failed. A topic may meet eiher or both to be considered.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And if "It is generally accepted that a film does not physically exist until it starts shooting" we have the quandary that follows when trying to judge a not-yet-film by criteria appropriate for made-films. Why not look at it in the same manner we might ANY topic, and judge the topic by its coverage?   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't mean that everything in the article is speculation, just the post where RAP says "Paramount won't cancel this" and "it is happening". --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * He's not including that in the article, though. And here an unsourced personal opinion will be discounted. I do understand his frustration about userfication though. It's sometimes discouraging to be sitting on an article in userspace only to have it be recreated unopposed later when its time is ripe. It's hapened to me, so I know. His angst is caused by not being able to accurately gauge that correct time of ripening. This is why I think incubation is the better solution in this instance. His contributions as author remain in the histories, the article benefits from more eyes and collaborative editing, and it is far more likely to return to mainspace at just the right moment of ripening.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And maybe if this keeps happening to you, you shouldn't keep creating articles that fall foul of WP:NFF! --Rob Sinden (talk) 03:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No offense, but WP:NFF i feel has grown outdated. To the point where essaies have been written overriding it. And essentially WP:GNG got it by the balls as well. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> (talk) 3:54 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not so much outdated, but rather being used as it it were policy or a trump of the leading instruction at WP:N which itself states that IF failing the GNG we may then look to subject-specific notability guides. WP:N does not say look at the SNGs first before considering the GNG. Quite the other-way-round. NFF does have its place, and we will continue having these discussions about it at AFD... but like all guidelnes, it is NOT policy, and should be treated with common sense and the understanding that occasional exceptions DO apply, for it is a refusal to accept that occasional exceptions exist where we have unneccessary drama.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL directs the reader specifically to WP:NFF in the case of judging when it is appropriate to create a film article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep or with good faith Incubate or Userfy. While the sub-SNG WP:NFF is sometimes seen to conflict with policy WP:FUTURE, the policy itself does allow properly sourced discussion of events that have not yet occured... even planned films. And as long as we have proper sourcing, we can find always find place for contextual information, even if not in a separate article. I believe that at a minimum, we can allow the article to be userfied or incubated out of respect to NFF and the willingness shown by editors to continue improving the article. After which we can then without prejudice set a redirect of the title to a parent topic elsewhere where the unmade film might be discussed in context to the film franchise... such as either the suggested Star Trek (film series) or at Star Trek (film series) and allow its return to mainspace when principal filmming is more imminent. Seems a reasonable compromise that meets both policy and guideline without rewriting either or bending either into pretzels. Looks like we'll have a very short wait.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not a huge fan of userfying these days after some instances in which the article was recreated while it was in my userspace. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> (talk) 12:49 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood. But incubation is often better than userfication. More eyes. Collaborative editing. Preserved edit history. And a return to mainspace when "ripe".  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. If we follow WP:NFF and delete this article, it's just going to be recreated in two months by somebody who watched the calendar like a hawk for when principle photography began.  Deleting this article would be both wasting the time of whomever has already worked on this article and potentially wasting the time of whomever works on the article if it has to be recreated sixty days from now.  Also, the odds of something happening in the next sixty days that completely cancels this project is slim to none. IndigoAK200 (talk) 14:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep or Userfy. A good bit of work has already been done here, and it would be a waste to throw that all away.  Also, it seems to me that Rob Sinden is being overly stringent to the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law. This film appears to be as close to a sure thing as Hollywood can deliver; you keep pointing out that it's not "in production" until filming actually begins, but even the start of filming is no guarantee that a project -- even a high-profile, big-budget project -- will progress to completion. EJSawyer (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * i'm not a fan of Userfying. I've had too many bad experiences upon moving articles to my userspace. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> (talk) 19:34 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that Userfying isn't the optimal choice, but it's better than chucking it all out the window.


 * FYI, some notable films that began filming, but remain incomplete are Dark Blood; The Man Who Killed Don Quixote; and a surprising, but notable entry, The Other Side of the Wind. Enough examples to show that just because principal photography begins doesn't mean that it will ever see the light of day.  High-profile, big-budget, major names...none of these are a guarantee.


 * On the other hand, we have an example from the Star Trek franchise: Star Trek: Phase II. This series was aborted just days before principal photography was scheduled to start.  And yet it's notable enough to warrant a WP. EJSawyer (talk) 01:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But these examples follow the spirit of WP:NFF which states "films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines". --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If this film were to fail at this stage, even if not a frame of film (or digital media, as the case may be) were shot, it would most certainly qualify as a notable failure. So your argument has become: it's not notable until it either starts shooting or doesn't start shooting.  That's quibbling over questions that will be resolved in a matter of weeks. Surely there are other articles that could better use the time spent debating this one. EJSawyer (talk) 14:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Completely incorrect assumption.  If this film were to fail at this stage, the failure itself would not be notable enough to warrant its own article, merely a mention in the development of the series.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and Rename to "Star Trek (2013 Film)". According to WP:NFF, the policy states that "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". The references are enough to recognize the article's Notability so deleting it would be a waste of good research. However, the name was not officially announced yet so please have it renamed.--Bumblezellio (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If it comes to renaming, i'm going to rename it Star Trek XII (Star Trek 12). Calling it Star Trek (2013 film) will confuse people into thinking the 2009 film is already getting remade. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> (talk) 3:40 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're quoting the bit of WP:NFF that covers "films that have already begun shooting". This is not one of those.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright I could go with "Star Trek XII (Star Trek 12)". There's no better title for the article than "Star Trek XII (Star Trek 12)". I agree with Rusted AutoParts.--Bumblezellio (talk) 03:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it would just be Star Trek XII. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> (talk) 4:23 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, a well sourced article. Even if this film is somehow cancelled, there would still be cause for an article, no doubt its cancellation would recieve a great deal of press-- Jac 16888 Talk 14:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Incubate. Well since Rob Sinden stated that film has to be deleted unless the film began shooting. I would suggest the article to be incubated till the film begins shooting. I wouldn't think it's necessary to discuss this right now until the film begins shooting in January 2012, then the discussion can continue. Does that sound fair enough?--Bumblezellio (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wha? It doesn't have to be deleted at all. This can act as a film project page like several other articles created before filming started. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> (talk) 3:11 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * My decision is clear now. Keep and Rename to Star Trek XII. No more second thoughts for me cause it's clearly a Keep anyway according to the consensus.--Bumblezellio (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that we shouldn't delete because we'd just have to start another article in January anyway, so I'm going to say Keep. True, the article was a bit premature, but now that we have it, we might as well keep it.TheLastAmigo (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename, and Move to Memory Alpha-
 * The film will definitely will not be called Star Trek 2. see this. So changing the name of the site would make sense.
 * I know consensus will probably preserve the page. I think the incubation for this page would be more appropriate for memory alpha, not this site. I consider myself an inclusionist, but the production is simply not far enough to make a full fledged page. Oldag07 (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note, Memory Alpha calls it Untitled Star Trek sequel. [Untitled Star Trek sequel] Oldag07 (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Memory Alpha? It will be renamed Star Trek XII and stay where it's at. We don't move pages on Wikipedia to Wiki's. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> (talk) 23:15 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The important thing to note here is this: though the film does not meet the criteria laid forth at WP:NFF, this particular film is of such a high profile and of such eager anticipation that it will become notable no matter what happens.  Either it is made, and becomes notable thusly, or it is derailed in some catastrophic fashion and becomes notable through that route (much as The Man Who Killed Don Quixote did).  Powers T 16:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is an incorrect assumption. If the film was cancelled this very minute, it would not be notable enough to warrant its own article.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And you're basing that on what exactly? That there won't be dozens of news articles about its cancellation, interviews/comments about it from cast & crew, possibly even fan petitions and whatnot? And since its unlikely to be cancelled anyway its not like we're not going to have an article on it sooner or later anyway. You seem determined to delete this article despite it being well written & very well sourced, all based upon a guideline, not a policy, a "generally accepted standard". Do you have any better justification than WP:NFF? because so far thats all you've parroted-- Jac 16888 Talk 16:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That still wouldn't warrant an article any more than, say, some of the failed Superman or Batman films would - see Superman in film or Batman in film for examples. If this film is cancelled prior to production, it wouldn't warrant anything more than a section in Star Trek (film series) or similar. Incidentally, the General notability guideline is also, by definition, "just" a guideline, unlike WP:CRYSTAL which is policy.  It is good practice to view WP:GNG and WP:NFF in conjunction with each other, but WP:NFF has been reached by consensus and does have some sound principles.  One of which is that you shouldn't assume that just because a proposed film is high-profile it is infallible.  This is what you are doing.  There's no reason why we shouldn't have followed WP:NFF in this case and incorporated the information elsewhere until the camera starts rolling.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Crystal is a policy, and has no application here since the article is not "unverifiable speculation". NFF is a guideline and can therefore be ignored when to follow it blindly would be a detriment to the project, i.e. the deletion of well sourced article. The same exception has been made to films on more than occasion, I see no reason this shouldn't be the same, see Articles for deletion/Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) or Articles for deletion/The Avengers (2012 film) for a couple of examples, and to quote from one of those pages "if a topic has received significant coverage it is notable regardless of the fact that the subject concerns a future event". Your entire basis for deletion has been that it does not meet NFF, and yet you not given any jusification for why that is a bad thing-- Jac 16888 Talk 19:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well we're clearly not going to agree here on when appropriate to ignore a well-established and well-considered guideline, and I don't feel that deleting this article would be detriment to the project, as the information can easily be housed elsewhere until appropriate to re-create the article. Regarding future events, WP:CRYSTAL specifically directs the reader to WP:NFF for situations regarding future films, so I don't think we should discount it so easily.  I think that there is among certain editors an overenthusiasm for prematurely creating articles for films that are not yet notable (and I still feel that this isn't YET), especially genre movies.  Yes, common sense should be applied when considering WP:NFF, but also when considering exceptional circumstances in order to discount it.  To my mind, there is not such a wealth of information that could not be housed elsewhere for the time being, so we should not be making the exception to WP:NFF in this case.  This being said, it is fairly clear what the outcome of this AfD will be, so there's no point in me fighting this further.  I would however appeal to editors to ensure that we only allow exceptions to WP:NFF in very rare circumstances, where the amount of information and coverage is so vast that it needs to be split from a parent article.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I would like the specific link from where you quote "if a topic has received significant coverage it is notable regardless of the fact that the subject concerns a future event" as I can't find it and would like to consider this in context. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not an incorrect assumption. If the film were cancelled today, it could only be for a catastrophic reason that would make the cancellation itself notable.  Powers T 14:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If the film were cancelled today, because, say, Paramount went bust, or Abrams got a better offer, or whatever reason, this article would consist of nothing more than we have here, and an explanation saying "production was cancelled on xxth of xxxember due to xxx". This is not enough to warrant a standalone article, and the event itself would not be notable in its own right (unless of course the reason truly was "catastrophic" and resulted in multiple deaths, etc.,) as films get cancelled all the time.  The information would then be best included in an article about the franchise/studio/director/whatever.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Derailing a film with as high a profile as this one would be a notable event. There would be a lot more to say about it than just "production is cancelled"; I guarantee it.  Powers T 21:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you can say you can "guarantee" something hypothetical would be notable! For a comparison, consider the unproduced Superman Returns sequel.  In any case, I'm not suggesting it will be cancelled - far from it - I agree the likelihood is slim, but that doesn't mean that I think that this future event is notable yet - but it will be when it happens.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep or userfy - there is a named, officially signed on, director; the same cast from the previous film will be "reprising their respective roles"; actor Zachary Quinto has granted interviews both about his coming out and this film; the script is written; and the locations have been 'scouted'. Even at this time, many millions of dollars have been contracted for, and thus the film is almost surely going forward. As NFF says, no film is 100 % sure until principal photograhy starts, but this is as close as it gets. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of userfying. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> (talk) 20:23 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As Christina said to Mommie Dearest, I am not a fan of userfying either, but I am a fan of Utilitarianism, as in, it works. Bearian (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's look at it this way. Tomorrow will be December 1. In 14 days will be December 15. That will mean there would be a month until filming begins, the normal area in which a film article is made. In my opinion, this was a little time wasteful. I understand Robsinden's perspective, but come on, it's too close to filming to need deletion. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> (talk) 16:11 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Given the tremendous success of the first one I would be surprised if they don't capitalize on that. I haven't read closely whether the sequel has been given a go, but I think the article should be kept. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 06:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd strongly suggest you'd familiarise yourself with WP:CRYSTAL - what you have said goes against everything in this policy. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Move
Unless something super drastic happens, current consensus seems like this page will be preserved. There seems to be a strong consensus to move the page. However we don't have a new title for it. I think this a proper location to discuss the move of the page. I am in favor of renaming it Star Trek XII. Oldag07 (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what's going to happen once this discussion comes to an end. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> (talk) 1:46 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Another problem when creating articles for films that are only in the pre-production stages. It seems fairly certain that the film will not be called Star Trek II or Star Trek XII.  Considering previous "film project" articles, how about Star Trek sequel film project?  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the 12th installment of the Star Trek series. That, imo, seems like a better title. Star Trek sequel film project sound kinda silly and isn't something people would type in looking for. By using XII, which the series is known for using Roman numerals, fans and people will have a better chance of finding it and won't risk later duplication. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> (talk) 12:49 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Naming the article Star Trek XII or Star Trek 12 is original research, as few (nothing comes up if you do a google news search) sources are calling it this, instead preferring to go with Star Trek 2 or "Star Trek sequel". As it has been reported that the film will not be called Star Trek 2, without a confirmed name we are faced with a problem.  We have to go with something sourced, or something that accurately describes the article.  Therefore it should either stay where it is (as per sources) or go with something along the lines of my suggestion of Star Trek sequel film project.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, i'll just keep it as Star Trek 2. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> (talk) 13:40 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You will, will you? - Shouldn't we see what the outcome of the discussion is? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're accusing me of WP:OWN, i am offended. I meant was after the discussion closes (if it ever does), i would either move it to Star Trek XII (which you vetoed) or keep as is. Didn't you read the numerous times i said this? <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> (talk) 14:08 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I read that as if you were saying that you will leave it as it is, as if it is your decision, yet this is a subject that is being debated. Maybe I picked up your meaning incorrectly, and if so I apologise, but there are similar undertones in comments above too - sometimes it's difficult to convey ones meaning properly on these talk pages.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been going off for a while with extreme tones and decisions. Well we already know the article is staying as Keep anyway, now the problem is the article's name. If I may, how about renaming the article as "The New Star Trek Film"? --Bumblezellio (talk) 08:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the use of the word "new" is appropriate. "Future" possibly, but I think "sequel" is a good indicator/disambiguator.  Maybe Future Star Trek film project, or Future Star Trek sequel.  I think I still favour Star Trek sequel film project.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The word "Sequel" could be confusing to some people as there're 12 Star Trek Films (Including this film). However, how about "Upcoming Star Trek Film"?--Bumblezellio (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think "future" is a better word than "upcoming", but I guess that's personal taste. Future Star Trek film project?  --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.