Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek XII


 * 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 Trek. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek XII

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Film fails WP:NFF. At the moment the information can be sufficiently covered at the Star Trek page. No cast is confirmed, no director is confirmed and no title is confirmed. I tried leaving it as a redirect but the creator is being stubborn. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —Darrenhusted (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral While it is true the information can be summarized at the franchise article, it could also be argued that it could be too much for a section. I've tried cleaning this article a little, but as you said, there's no confirmed cast nor director.  I must also note that numerous cast members have discussed the sequel and their hopes, as has the head of Viacom.  --HELLØ    ŦHERE 23:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Star Trek. The only information about this movie (which doesn't even have a name yet, I've also heard the head of Paramount call it "Star Trek 2") is the writers and director. The script isn't even written, yet alone any kind of production started.  TJ   Spyke   23:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per WP:NFF - I quote "While satisfying these notability guidelines generally indicates a film warrants an article, failing to satisfy them is not a criterion for speedy deletion." I also believe that WP:IAR and WP:DEMOLISH apply here.  The whole reason I created this article was because I came here looking for information on the sequel and there was nothing to be found.  Although there is no confirmed cast or director, there is a production team, a screenwriter and a projected release date.  A sizeable article (with citations, I might add), has been created and no doubt there will be plenty more information to add in the coming weeks and months.  Also, with the current high visibility of the new Star Trek film and the fame of Star Trek in general, I would argue that this is certainly a notable topic.  Daskill (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a speedy deletion. You misunderstand the process. There is no director, there is no cast, there is no start date, there is no release date. The fact that you can google Star Trek sequel and find some citations given that the current film has made a couple of hundred million dollars is not a surprise, but those links are nothing but rumours, other than confirming Orci and Kurtzman. The most reliable source, Variety doesn't even give any dates. If fails the test for notability, and the name will not be Star Trek XII as the current film isn't called Star Trek XI, and no ST films have carried a number since VI. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't misunderstand the process. I know this is not a speedy deletion, but I think you're missing the spirit of the rule.  There's no point in deleting perfectly good, verifiable information just to blindly and rigidly adhere to Wikipedia guidlines.  As for your quibble about the name, if you don't think it's appropriate, start a discussion on the talk page and we can pick a more suitable name.  Daskill (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * When I made it a redirect I sent you to NFF, then I posted on your talkpage about NFF, then I stated NFF as the reason for this AfD, I'm very familiar with NFF. To suggest that by following NFF I am "blindly and rigidly" adhering to some rule despite anything else fails to actually address what the point of NFF is, which is to determine notability. The subject of this article is not notable enough at this moment to justify an article, it is that simple. I'm not going to start a discussion about the title for a film which doesn't even have a script, director or actors. There is no point picking a more suitable name for a film which is at least a year to 18 months away from actually being a tangible thing. You suggest IAR and DEMOLISH apply when they don't, if an subject doesn't meet notability guidelines then it can't have an article, it is as simple as that. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't use a guideline for speedy deletions when it's not a speedy deletion discussion. This article fails actual movie guidelines. The only confirmed information are the writers, everything else is just rumors and speculation.  TJ   Spyke   00:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It put it in slightly less bureaucratic terms, the rule you're talking about is intended to encourage this discussion before deletion, not completely negate it. Rather than a single admin deleting the page out of hand ("speedy deletion"), such pages should be brought to the community to decide their encyclopedia quality (what we're doing here). Now is the time to make the case for the encyclopedic quality - or lack thereof - of this subject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:HAMMERTIME sums this up perfectly. It is inevitable another Star Trek movie will be made, let the article wait until there is more than a few names of wanted cast and crew. Trevor Marron (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:HAMMER covers it nicely. Redirect this to Star Trek (although deleting it as an unlikely title is fine too), since it's obvious that this will be made but there's essentially zero info. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect. WP:NFF applies and counsels a redirect until principle photography starts.  Sure, we could ignore the rule but there's no reason to until there is too much verifiable, encyclopedic content to include in the series article.  I'd consider this a plausible redirect, as the continued sequence is often referenced in fan discussions.  Eluchil404 (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep People coming to Wikipedia will expect and look for an article on the next Star Trek film and information on the film will no doubt be fast and forthcoming. Why bother deleting this article only to create a new one later? The next film is inevitable. I do agree on the name of the article needing to be changed, though. MegabyteModem (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC) { — MegabyteModem (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Redirect to 11, and a sequel section. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete & salt: until there is more confirmation of credentials. C'mon everyone you know this hugely violates the rules we have on upcoming films. Ryan 4314   (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Star Trek for now. Waaaaay to early to have a page, especially since there is little to no real information on the film yet. MikeWazowski (talk) 11:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Stop, Hammertime. -- Aatrek / TALK 16:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect, I don't care which. Sourced or not, it's all just vague speculation and far too early to be writing an article. Per WP:NFF we shouldn't have a standalone article until the film goes into production. PC78 (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Star Trek, this is what the "Untitled sequel" link in Star Trek (film)'s infobox already does. Obviously no objections to recreation once principle photography begins per WP:NFF. BryanG (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect. WP:NFF is a very good guideline to use, and I see no reason to disregard it in this case. Once filming starts spin it out again. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 13:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP per WP:IAR and WP:DEMOLISH. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There seems to be enough sourced info on the upcoming film. The only problem is the title. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And the complete lack of any content, and the lack of a cast, or a director and sources with both say Shatner is in the next film and say that he refuses to be in the next film. And that we have a policy about future films, which this article does not meet. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * COMPLETE lack of ANY content? I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate.  Daskill (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Star Trek as suggested by BryanG. No script, cast, director, or title?  There seems to be as much information as for Star Trek XIII, XIV, etc.  2help (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really think that's fair. There is much more information on Star Trek 12 than there is on 13 or 14; namely, we know this one exists, we know who's writing, who's producing, who is contractually obliged to appear, naming convention etc. etc.  Daskill (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is exactly enough information to fit in the Star Trek future section, that is that it has been greenlit, and has two writers, that is all. Not enough for a separate article. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.