The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Article about an as yet unreleased film, not properly demonstrated as the subject of sufficient production coverage to exempt it from the primary notability criteria at WP:NFO. This was originally created in draftspace, and had been declined by an AFC reviewer for not yet being shown to meet the notability criteria for films -- but then earlier today it was arbitrarily moved out of process by an editor who is not an AFC reviewer on the grounds that "This movie has completed post production. Typically an article is moved to the mainspace once it has started filming".
Except that the standard rule is not that films are automatically notable just because it's possible to verify that they're in the production pipeline -- under normal circumstances a film is not notable until it's released and getting reviewed by film critics, and making a film notable this far in advance of its release requires a significant volume of production coverage going far, far beyond just a couple of stray casting announcements. But this is just sourced to a couple of stray casting announcements, and the page-mover did not add even one new source that wasn't already in the article at the time of its AFC decline in July.
So obviously no prejudice against recreation next year when it is released and starts garnering the critical reviews that are essential to establishing a film's notability -- but a couple of casting announcements is not sufficient coverage to already get it in the door today. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)