Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of traps in the Saw film series (2nd nomination)

List of traps in the Saw film series

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/List of traps in the Saw film series
• Articles for deletion/List of traps in the Saw film series (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/List of traps in the Saw film series (3rd nomination)

List of traps in the Saw film series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

While this is fascinating stuff, it has become more of a massive plot hide-out than an informative article. It seems that all the text that can't go in the film articles gets dumped in here; I don't see why every single trap featured has to be explained in vivid detail. We're running an encyclopedia, not converting movies to novels. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 06:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Hopeless fancruft. Belongs on its own wiki. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I think it may be spoiler material, and who likes spoilers anyway?! --Weasel5i2 (talk) 07:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Pointless gorecruft. No independent notability. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The traps are a very significant part of a notable series, which as of now is soon to be five films and later six films. This article was nominated for deletion once, and as you can see, was kept. If it was "gorecruft" (which shows obvious bias in of itself) it probably would have been deleted. "Spoiler" material, obviously, is also hardly a valid reason for deletion, for reasons I shouldn't have to be stating. I really don't see how this has any less validity than something like Magical objects in Harry Potter besides "I like Harry Potter and don't like Saw". I do think a lot of the plot summary could be removed and be replaced with other information, such as the concept and creation of the traps, as well as maybe critical reception. The article does need work, I just don't think that makes it suitable deletion fodder.--CyberGhostface (talk) 11:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:WAX is not a reason to keep articles. We're not discussing whether the Saw series is better than whatever J.K. Rowling is doing nowadays. Also, we're not discussing the previous AFD result because it doesn't affect this one bit. Like I said in my summary, the problem doesn't lie in this being a spoiler, but rather just a long plot summary. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 13:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I wasn't referring to you when I talked about spoilers, I was referring to User:Weasel5i2 whose sole argument was "this article contains spoilers, who likes spoilers?" Regarding plot summaries...the article does need to be trimmed. But it's certainly not impossible for real world information to be added, such as critical reception and behind the scenes info. The whole notion of the Saw traps have, while not as iconic as say Freddy or Jason, have become ingrained into popular culture and have been the focus of a couple of parodies in television. This is in addition to drawing comparisions with real life torture devices that the filmmakers have drawn comparision to when making them. I think deletion should only be used when it is a lost case, and I don't think this fits the criteria. My hands are pretty full at the moment, but once my plate clears up, I would be able to work on it on the future. I wouldn't have time, however, to do all this work in the span of the one week that this is up for deletion.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete Fancruft, plot summary. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 12:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment (From Saw V) "Hello, inclusionists... I want to play a game. Your article survived deletion a year ago because there was no consensus, but it has remained unchanged... where are your friends now? By the time this tape is finished, you will have just a few more days to find a way out. At the end of those few days... you should know better than anyone, what happens then. There is an obscure Wikipedia policy that will unlock the support you need to stop the deletion process... choose the wrong policy, however, and your article will even be barred from Deletionpedia.... make your choice." Mandsford (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep - the list could be modified to remove the plot information and keep only descriptions of the traps themselves. Alternatively, they could be merged into Saw (film series) or the individual film articles. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment I suppose merging would be better than just deleting them outright if that's what I came down to..--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Or, at the very least, Merge into Saw (film series), as per AdamBMorgan's suggestion. I also agree with CyberGhostface's observation -- deletion should only be used when an article cannot be salvaged, and that is clearly not the case here. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. In the same way that Wikipedia is not a game guide, we're also not a trivia guide for films, either. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• "Strongly Keep" Wikipedia needs this. I've been using it often, in fact! This page gives a more in-depth description of the Plot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.247.244 (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The main focus of the series is the traps and their intricacies. To delete this article would mean a need to include information on each trap for each movie in their respective movie section, making the articles long and inwieldy. 71.162.238.108 (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)