Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars sequel trilogy (2nd nomination)


 * 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 speedy keep. The account who created this AfD was likely a sockpuppet. If you wish to reopen this AfD, please feel free to do so. NW ( Talk ) 22:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Star Wars sequel trilogy
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

I love SW but this article shouldn't be at wikipedia. A gang of people speculated about whether a bunch of films would be made, and the producers pondered it and then declined. It's a non-story and a lot of successful films have a will-they-won't-they sequel debate. No matter now many sources there are, it'll always be the same. Someone in the last discussion said "WP:CRYSTAL says we have to delete an article about a film that exists but has not been released, yet here is an article about a film that does not exist nor is anybody planning to start making it". We need to note that this speculation happened, so I would be willing to develop a paragraph in the main SW article. Delete because of WP:SYN (collection of random rumours) and WP:CRYSTAL. Starwarsdeathstar (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC) — Starwarsdeathstar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Merge into Star Wars. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or MAYBE merge into Star Wars. As I mentioned in the original AFD, there is nothing notable here. Plans for a trilogy that never happened is not notable enough for it's own article. Either delete it or give it a small section in the Star Wars article (a lot of the content in this article could be cut out).  TJ   Spyke   22:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep just as I voted the last time. This isn't a case of WP:CRYSTAL, it's a sufficiently referenced article on an extremely notable series. Even if they never exist, they're notable enough (and sourced well enough) to have an entry detailing them and why they're not actally being made. Dayewalker (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - As I said in the prior AFD (only six months ago), the article is more than adequately sourced with many significant coverage from reliable third-party sources, many of them major news outlets. While Lucasfilm's "official story" on the sequel films *now* is that they were never planned, this is historically inaccurate, based on relevant cites over the years. And, as shown by the wealth of information in the article, this would overwhelm the main Star Wars article, and a separate topic is justified. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep is this Afd even serious?--Sky Attacker   the legend reborn...  22:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Provide a rational- Your breaking of WP:AGF and WP:ILIKEIT isn't a good excuse to save the article. Starwarsdeathstar (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The rationale provided by the comments above speak for themselves and don't accuse me of breaking WP:AGF or WP:ILIKEIT as I 1. Do not even know the nominator and 2. Do not follow Star Wars at all, but that does not excuse its notability.--Sky Attacker   the legend reborn...  22:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This easily passes the test of independent notability, as the sources demonstrate. It's been news since at least 1980, when the words "Episode V" appeared on the opening for The Empire Strikes Back  and the matter was revisited in 1983 and 1997
 * 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.