Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films by gory death scene (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by SheepLinterBot (talk | contribs) at 17:06, 20 February 2023 (→‎[[List of films by gory death scene]]: [t. 1] fix font tags linter errors). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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 Delete I'm not sure if I fully agree with those who opined delete, but the numerical consensus is clear and the policy-based arguments are at least reasonable. If someone wants this moved to userspace or project-space in an attempt to come up with a version that satisfies the delete arguments as to sourcing and OR, drop me a note and we can discuss it, or go to WP:DRV. DES (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films by gory death scene[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of films by gory death scene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Completely original research. There is no objective standard to determine what a "gory death" is. There are two sources, one a book published in 1965 which can't source any film published after that date which is therefore most of the article. The second source is a website that is user-submitted, therefore unacceptable. Other than films which can be sourced to the book, the rest are included based on the opinions of editors on what constitutes a "gory death", thus failing policy. Despite it being nominated twice before, there has been seemingly no effort to ensure this article complies with Wikipedia policies of verifiability and no original research so in my opinion it's time this was deleted. One Night In Hackney303 08:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Original research concerns, lack of a proper definition of "gory" for the list. For instance, putting Jack Dawson's death in Titanic as a gory death is stretching it (It was hypothermia where the cold water gradually weakened him until he passes out, there was no blood, guts or anything "gory" in it) . Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but perhaps change to List of films by violent death scene. Someone apparently has a grudge against this article, already surviving two AfDs. That said, I see what the nominator is digging at, so criteria must be established. That said, this is a useful list for people researching violence in films. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs09:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You are welcome to check the history of the article and both previous AfDs, I have not contributed in any manner prior to today. One Night In Hackney303 09:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I should note that the two previous AfD's were both "no consensus" and therefore should not be seen as a "survival" or any kind of affirmation for this article. Also, Jamyskis, I'm afraid that the only argument you're putting in for keeping it is that "it's useful." Please see WP:USEFUL for why that is not a valid reason to keep an article. --Hnsampat 11:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coment Also on further reflection, if it was just violent as opposed to gory wouldn't that be particularly indiscriminate? One Night In Hackney303 11:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's pretty indiscriminate as it stands, which is why it probably ought to be deleted. --Hnsampat 11:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well it would be even more indiscriminate is what I meant, as violent is much broader than gory. One Night In Hackney303 11:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What the article needs though is a sentence or two added to the introductory paragraph clearly stating that the films mentioned are examples (and, by implication, that any such list can never aim at being exhaustive). I know the following is not a "keep" argument (no need to refer me to WP:OTHERSHITEXISTS or whatever it's called), but deleting this list on grounds of "original research" would open a Pandora's box of similar requests for deletion. <KF> 14:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN This is the most ridiculous list I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and that's saying something. "List of films by gory death scene"? Hello??? If that's not original research, I don't know what is. But hey, it's a funny list, and can be filed away in the attic. YechielMan 14:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I've seen Wikipedia:Unusual articles. The unifying thread in all of them is a specific, well-defined breed of insanity, as opposed to a random collection of films based on one relatively minor feature within that film. YechielMan 16:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can someone please direct me to a good working definition of the word encyclopedic? I've seen it waved around repeatedly, having spent a few weeks in policy discussion, and it's starting to get irritating. From what little I know of the issue, such conceptualization might be highly difficult in my native language (we have no equivalent to 'un-American', either) making me unused in thinking that way. If my language is too self-centered, I blame the difference for that too. But now we're way off-topic. --Kizor 16:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NOT, grouping films by "gory death scenes" is trivial and indiscriminate in my book. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Death by sword/knife will be an infinitely long list; also OR (e.g., I disagreed with some of the placements--where are the third-party refs.?). JJL 17:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No, it won't. It's far more restrictive than a list of all movies where people are shot to death, which indeed would be unacceptable. When "death by gunfire" began to get ungainly large, it was changed in discussion to the more appropriate "death by excessive/graphic gunfire", which is of manageable size and has worked well. Along with special cases, like snipers shot through their own scope being covered in "death by ocular trauma" instead, it will easily last for the foreseeable future. As far as I can see, the same can be done with blades. Why couldn't it? --Kizor 18:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of the frying pan, into the fire. "Excessive gunfire" is an entirely subjective criterion. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - for all the same reasons why I nominated it the last time. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely associated topics and Wikipedia articles require neutral POV. The films on this list with death scenes by similar method have nothing in common with each other in terms of theme, style or genre. They don't even necessarily share much in common by way of the supposed commonality, the death scene. Apocalypto, a lavish, big budget film about one man's experiences at the fall of the Mayan civilization, is in the "violent organ removal" section alongside I Spit on Your Grave, a low budget exploitation shocker about a woman taking revenge on the men who violently raped her, because one includes the sacrificial removal of hearts and the other features a man's balls being ripped off (I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine which film had which scene). These films are lumped alongside other films from every conceivable genre, style and subject matter which feature "gory" deaths by other means. There is no possible objective definition of what constitutes a "gory" death scene, thus the inclusion of any film on this list is reliant on the opinion of an editor as to whether it should be on the list. Otto4711 18:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Here's a question I don't think anyone has asked yet: What possible purpose does this list serve? I can't think of any possible reason that categorizing movies by their "gory death scene" would be useful to a reader. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT#IINFO.--Tone 21:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I do not understand how that applies. The section specifically prohibits only certain kinds of collections: FAQs, travel guides, memorials, instruction manuals, Internet guides, textbooks, sole plot summaries, lyrics databases, statistics and news reports. This is none of thse. If you think that the criteria are too lax, by all means bring up your grievances, they have been strictened before to make the page more discriminate. --Kizor 21:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the list there is not exhaustive. Those items are the things about which consensus has been determined to have been achieved. It does not mean that nothing else can be an indiscriminate collection or that NOT#IINFO doesn't apply to other sorts of articles. Otto4711 07:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What people say here over and over again is delete it because it is an indiscriminate collection of items of information. They even quote the relevant Wikipedia policy. Now the List is even a "textbook example". However, the List of people by name is not any of the things mentioned in WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE (List of Frequently Asked Questions, Memorial, Travel guide, Instruction manual, Internet guide, Textbook or annotated text, Lyrics database, Plot summary, Statistics). Referring to WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE is probably the weakest delete argument of all, as no one is willing, or able, to explain why it applies here in the first place. <KF> 22:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I've pointed out here that "the article needs [...] a sentence or two added to the introductory paragraph clearly stating that the films mentioned are examples", but again this is not taken into consideration. Rather, a single contributor realises that they "can't think of any possible reason that categorizing movies by their "gory death scene" would be useful to a reader" although it must be clear to anyone that the vast majority of articles here at Wikipedia are useless to any randomly chosen individual and that that's no reason to want to see them deleted. The "clear consensus" is looming again. <KF> 22:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Before making any more comments of "clear consensus", you should be aware that consensus cannot overrule the fact that at present this article fails WP:V and WP:OR. One Night In Hackney303 22:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (WP:V) All you have to do is watch all those movies. Alternatively, you can rely on the expert knowledge of those Wikipedians who compiled the list. As far as WP:OR is concerned, I don't believe that a mere list can ever be "original research". And what does that phrase about my commenting on "clear consensus" mean? Is that some kind of threat? <KF> 23:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment By watching a film, how does an editor determine whether the death is suitably gory for inclusion on this list? As for relying on the "expert knowledge of those Wikipedians who compiled the list", you do realise you've just argued in favour of deletion? One Night In Hackney303 00:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Enlighten me, please. <KF> 00:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting. <KF> 07:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait away, I'll just let your comment speak for itself. One Night In Hackney303 10:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's the easy way out, and I can't quite take it seriously. If you've run out of arguments, say so. If you haven't, please explain to me in what way I have argued in favour of deletion. <KF> 10:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you've misunderstood. There's no need for me to argue that point, because your "argument" is pro-deletion. If you don't understand the significance of what you've said already, no amount of patient explanation from me will help. To be honest I don't take anything you say seriously, so I'd quit while you're behind if I was you. One Night In Hackney303 10:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, it was a honest question. There's no need to lapse from being polite. --Kizor 10:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill this article by "gory death scene" (i.e. Delete) - First of all, there is no way to objectively define the word "gory." For instance, the shootout at the end of Taxi Driver was considered extremely graphic in its day, but is not so bad by today's standards (although, in my opinion, it is still quite brutal). Who is to say what constitutes "gory"? Regardless of how one defines it, there is no way to define "gory" without injecting one's point of view, which violates Wikipedia policy. Even if we change it to "violent" or something else, we can't change the fact that this is going to be an insanely long list with films on it that often have little or nothing to do with each other. Already, we see Taxi Driver, Scream, Saving Private Ryan, and Star Wars: Episode III (!) all under the category of "excessive and/or graphic gunfire." Um, the first one is a psychological drama that has no violence whatsoever until the last scene, the second is a slasher film filled with violent deaths (but doesn't have much artistic value), the third is a graphic but critically acclaimed World War II drama with lots of violent battle scenes, and the fourth is a sci-fi adventure where there are no firearms and no blood! This list is a clear-cut violation of the policy that Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be about loosely-connected topics. Sorry guys, but this one's a no-brainer. It's got to go. --Hnsampat 23:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional comment - I would like to say this to anybody who thinks this list is "useful." I, for one, would never want to look at this list. You know why? Because in order to read information about one movie, I'd have to read spoilers for 50 or more others, many of which I haven't seen but intend to see. So, I just wouldn't look at this list. Many others wouldn't either. Keep that in mind before arguing that this list is "useful." --Hnsampat 23:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • One more thing - Since I mentioned the list of films containing "death by excessive and/or graphic gunfire," ponder this. Home Alone features a film-within-a-film where one gangster shows up at another gangster's office and, after a brief conversation, the other gangster pulls out a tommy gun and unloads the entire clip on him while laughing maniacly. The scene features no blood whatsoever, is in black-and-white, and is so ridiculous that it is, quite frankly, kind of funny (although it's probably disturbing for young kids). Now, this gangster clearly kills the other guy by "excessive gunfire." One shot would've done it and this guy unloads the entire clip. In fact, he keeps shooting at the guy while he's down on the ground. So, should that go on this list? If you say "no" and your reasoning is that the film-within-a-film is not a real movie, let me give you this. In Dick Tracy, there's a climactic shootout between the police and the bad guys and our hero unloads on one of the principal villains. Here's a kids' movie that is rated PG with a hero who kills a villain in self-defense via "excessive gunfire." Should that go on this list? --Hnsampat 23:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. "This is going to be an insanely long list" (Hnsampat)—well, only if we erroneously believe we have to finish it; not if we just give examples. As far as spoilers are concerned, the newly formed anti-spoiler group will argue along the lines of "This is an encyclopaedia. Information is revealed" (see Wikipedia talk:Spoiler). And who would believe there are people out there who find Finnish exonyms (Sweden) "useful"? And yes, all those films mentioned above could go on this list—it's up to the individual user to compare those killings and draw their own conclusions (and, by doing so, do some "original research"). <KF> 00:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've always disagreed with "examples", but "not conclusive" is another thing. There's even an accepted practice for marking that. More importantly: Hnsampat, what does the top of the article say? --Kizor 00:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - That's exactly my point. The top of the article defines "gory" from the point of view of the author. The author of this article clearly has established criteria for himself/herself as to what constitutes "sadistic" or "brutal" or "gory" and is now injecting that point of view into the article. However, Wikipedia policies dictate that we cannot inject our points of view as criteria for lists; we must follow a neutral point of view. The criteria for inclusion must be objective. "Gory" is an emotionally loaded word. It carries a connotation of brutality, sadism, and essentially is supposed to describe something generally considered revolting. What is revolting, however, differs from person to person. There is no way that the word "gory" can ever be objective and so there is no way that this list can ever have objective criteria and therefore it's got to go. --Hnsampat 02:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • But it's not loaded. "Gore" is well established: Explicit graphic violence "visually depicted, especially the realistic depiction of serious physical injuries involving blood, flesh and bone matter." "Gory" is, in several dictionaries, defined to mean "involving much bloodshed and violence", "Full of or characterized by bloodshed and violence," or variants. There's a clear, dispassionate, clinical definition, it therefore is not dependent on feelings. --Kizor 04:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Question. Does the BBFC "inject its point of view" when it rates films? Does a contributor to Wikipedia "inject their point of view" when they add categories to articles? (See Talk:Talk Talk (novel) as an example.) <KF> 07:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am not terribly familiar with the workings of the BBFC but if they operate anything like the MPAA then yes, they most likely do inject their viewpoint when rating films. Deciding that material of a certain type is or isn't suitable for viewing across the board by all people under a particular arbitrary age is very much the result of the injection of any number of viewpoints (viewing violence is less harmful than viewing sexually oriented material, viewing heterosexually oriented material is less harmful than viewing homosexually oriented material, viewing material of any sort is harmful at all; just for starters). There is no purely objective standard for rating films. Even one that relies on the mechanical counting of specific words or events (number of times the word "fuck" is said; number of people who get shot; whatever) is at its root subjective because of the presumption that the words or events it's tabulating are such that basing a rating on that tabulation is warranted or reasonable. And yes, if the category is one not based on an objective verifiable factual standard (Category:Chemical elements for instance) then inclusion in a category is (or can be) the injection of an editor's viewpoint. Which is why categories that are subjective or have arbitrary standards for inclusion are considered overcategorization and are frequently deleted. Otto4711 10:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well sourced and not indiscriminate. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Exactly how is it well sourced? One Night In Hackney303 03:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article is the antithesis of "well sourced". There is only one source listed, and it is not referenced anywhere in the list. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • (editconflict) I believe he means that every single list item has content details that are "verifiable without specialist knowledge", as policies say. More literary sources would be neat (and should be obtainable - a mistake on the editors' part. Partially mine.), but on the level of primary sources, it's sourced completely. Heh. --Kizor 07:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Each of the films in the list is a separate source. <KF> 07:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But it's not "verifiable without specialist knowledge" as stated above, because we have to "rely on the expert knowledge of those Wikipedians who compiled the list". One Night In Hackney303 10:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is verifiable without specialist knowledge, it's just time-consuming: All you have to do is watch hundreds of films. I'm sure you'll recognise someone being, say, drowned in liquid iron. Apart from that, there's something called division of labour (and has been ever since the neolithic I suppose), so why not have others do some of the job? Are you able to verify all other articles here at Wikipedia all by yourself? <KF> 10:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey. Chill. Please take a break and a breather or something. You know that that the statement about experts (apparently meaning people who have seen the film in question) was badly phrased - by sticking to ridiculing the word choice of a non-native English speaker instead of addressing the issue, you give an impression of yourself that you might not want to give. That's how I'm reading the situation, anyway. --Kizor 10:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I may, I would like to refer you to one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia, which is that you must cite your sources. The burden of proof lies is not on the reader, which means that the reader shouldn't have to go out and watch every single movie. Rather, there must be a direct citation of some reliable source calling a given scene in a given movie "gory" if you want to keep that scene on this list. That is the idea behind verifiability. The idea is not that the information exists "out there somewhere" and people are free to look it up and so there's no need to cite it here. --Hnsampat 19:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information does not exist "out there somewhere". Rather, the source—a particular film itself—is clearly cited. True, you would probably have to add whereabouts in the movie you'd find the particularly "gory scene"—beginning, middle, or end. However, if you think that's not enough, the ensuing dilemma will have far-reaching consequences for all sorts of lists here at Wikipedia: You'd have to find dozens, if not hundreds of books citing scenes from films mentioned here as "gory", which, I guess, is not feasible. If you found just one or two books citing many, or most, of the scenes, it would be a copyvio to list the scenes here. By analogy, a list such as the List of illnesses related to poor nutrition—a random choice—would almost have to be speedy-deleted as it seems to violate practically all Wikipedia policies (no sources, POV, original research). As I said above, it would open a Pandora's box, there'd be new deletion sprees. Personally, I'd prefer When Harry Met Sally to any gory death scene, and I hardly ever watch such films. Maybe that's why I found reading that list very very interesting. <KF> 21:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the obsession with trivial lists of deaths in films. The JPStalk to me 13:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because this list is completely trivial. The term of "gory death scene" is subject to an editor's interpretation, a violation of Wikipedia's no original research policy. Such an indiscriminate list also lacks real-world context. Gory deaths in films should be explored in a prose article using outside references with specifically cited examples, if such an article does not already exist. Here, the subjective and indiscriminate nature of the article makes this list unencyclopedic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Everyone is talking about the usefulness of this list. I personally found it very useful. It helped me discover lots of films that I hadn't heard of before. Everyone is also saying how the list trivial. One person may view the list as completely pointless, but another person may find the list extremely useful. The fact if it's trivial or not (which is what most people are arguing on this page) is also the reader's point of view. I find the list pretty comprehensive and have personally read through it multiple times, removing and adding things that followed the beginning paragraph's guidelines. I hope maybe this will give everyone on here a different point of view. -Moviemaniacx
  • Keep. OR and standards will be addressed in detail when I get home from work, I've been lucky to get away with even this part of my reply. (*cough*)
    As for what purpose the list could serve: The list is useful for film theorists, fans of splatter films and of action movies in general, those who'd like to learn about the prevalence of a particular dramatic technique, or look for parallels to an instance that they've seen (delayed dismemberment, for instance, is beloved among action movie watchers), or to learn about the cinematic treatment of something (such as how lasers are presented in fiction) ...quite a lot of people, really... this is not just idle theorizing, let me present a real-life example. I frequent TV Tropes Wiki, which collects and catalogues conventions in visual media. The place Joss Whedon is fond of and which makes the producers of Lost laugh. One recent entry was about the unrealistic way lava and other molten substances are consistently presented unrealistically on TV - convection, the far greater danger, is ignored. (Think the way a character in Volcano balances right above a lava flow, where the air would be heated by hundreds of degrees.) For researching that, one minute on the section "burning or other extreme heat exposure" of this article is well more productive than twenty minutes of browsing articles on disaster movies without knowing where to look. --Kizor 08:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your bottom line here is that "It's useful." Please take a look at WP:USEFUL to see why "usefulness" is not in and of itself a valid reason to keep an article. --Hnsampat 10:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, but I'm aware of WP:USEFUL. Please don't be so quick to assume that the other side's arguments are founded on ignorance of policy. It can really get rather irritating. This is, as I expressly said, a fragment of an argument. It's (finally) being continued below. Above is a specific counterargument to the claim several people have made - including yourself at some length - that the article should be deleted because it's useless. When saying that it's not useful is valid grounds for deletion but saying that it is useful is to be ignored, something's wrong. --Kizor 12:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC), updated 21:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Further, it also helps the claim that the article is in line with WP:LIST. --Kizor 21:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closing admin - I hope I'm not mischaracterizing anybody's argument when I say this, but it seems like the general consensus favors deletion and the few dissenters who argue for keeping the article do so because "It's useful." However, WP:USEFUL describes quite nicely why "usefulness" is not in and of itself a valid reason to keep an article. --Hnsampat 10:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mega-Delete Precisely what I would call Overlistification. Many of the "keepers" are not aiming at presenting a strong argument for actually retaining the list but rather pushing for no consensus. And also why does it matter if it is sourced?. Sourced does not mean encyclopedic. Bulldog123 16:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. WORKING ON IT! --Kizor 17:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonsense. —JackLumber/tɔk/ 21:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Why nonsense? It's real. Film genres are dedicated to it. --Kizor 21:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Easiest WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, why? Quote: "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". The only thing the items of this list have in common is a gory scene, that's pretty loose, especially since most are not noted as being a list (e.g. Nixon's Enemies List), but as scenes from a film (most aren't notable scenes at all). Bignole 22:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:WAX is not a particularly compelling argument for keeping this article. If you think 1952 violates Wikipedia policy or guidelines you are free to nominate it for deletion or otherwise work on it. Its existence does not justify the existence of this article. Otto4711 22:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mine was no argument, whether compelling or otherwise, but a simple question (see above). (Now of course someone will point out that this is not the right place to ask questions.) Before anyone can come up with any more three-letter abbreviations, I realised quite some time ago—what with the sheer abundance of ready-made and neatly capsuled [[WP:XXX]]s—that this list wouldn't have any chance of survival, at least the way it looks now. That's why I think that it should be projectified so that people interested in it can still work on it. It seems to me that such a solution would cater for all needs. <KF> 23:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way I see it, the overwhelming consensus of this deletion discussion here is not only that this article ought to be deleted, but that the topic itself is irredeemably unencyclopedic, meaning it has no hope of ever being suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. How, then, do you suppose that this topic will somehow be made suitable for Wikipedia in the future? --Hnsampat 00:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any consensus that this topic is "irredeemably unencyclopaedic". As to your question, I'm not interested in gory death scenes, so I wouldn't know. People working on film articles might want to use the list as a point of reference ("A similar scene exists in ..." or whatever). Generally, once a useful (yes, WP:USEFUL) list has been compiled, I think it's sad to see it go. <KF> 17:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to copy it to your user page if you want to keep it. Just remove the categories from your copy. Otto4711 15:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did so the moment it was nominated. That's not the point. People who want to use the page will have difficulty finding the list there, and anyway I don't want people to mess around with my user pages. Is it so difficult to understand that I'm not arguing here on my own behalf? <KF> 15:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Irredeemably" is an awfully strong word at the best of times, not to mention when the subject in question has already survived AfD twice. --Kizor 21:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What purpose does this page serve? It is a seemingly pointless and indiscriminate (and inevitably incomplete) collection of films linked by no criteria other than that someone dies in them, and this death has been judged by someone to be 'gory', which is arguably POV/original research itself. Arguably, any film that includes a death scene could be included on this list somehow, which means it would probably encompass over half of all films ever made! There are places for this material - but they are websites specifically intended to inform viewers of a film's violent content, not an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is NOT the MPAA. Terraxos 00:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC) (Comments edited by myself for civility - Terraxos 19:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete Yet another pointless death-list. (E.g., Sopranos deaths AfD.)--Mike18xx 05:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closing admin. I have to join KF in requesting the projectification of this article on the condition that that's actually a word. It's accepted practice that a willing party can rewrite a deleted article into a better version. In this case, a party of several people. This article is too large for a single editor, particularily if films must be sourced to something else than primary sources; a workable definition of "gory" - which CAN be done - or a name change needs wider attention about consensus anyway. If it doesn't work, if it can't be done, then the attempt will dry up and no harm done. This discussion doesn't say much about the outcome of that process, a greatly different matter, especially since we cannot gauge the effects on the noncommitted - those who do not participate in the discussion because haven't formed an opinion one way or the other, or think they don't have the expertise, etc. Not that I can speak for anyone else but I do that all the time. Give us the body. Here's another factor. I have initiated transwiki procedures (always wanted to say that; it means translating into a non-english Wikipedia.) This is NOT a single person's or a momentary effort - I don't even want to think about how much time it'll take to look up the translation of every movie name on the list alone - it needs the list on hand. Wikipedia forks would be outdated and lose formatting, which at more than 100 KB is a non-trivial issue, as well as the discussion pages, which feature considerations and precedents that are valuable in adapting to local conventions. Access to article history is paramount is the process will have considerations of reorganization or of the lines drawn between sections, which it will have. Userfication is for as little as possible for as little time as possible, deviation Considered Harmful. --Kizor 22:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Holy WP:NOT batman! Where are we going to get sources for this? We cannot just watch movies and classify them ourselves, that is original research. This is not even an encyclopedic topic, not even close. (H) 15:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unencyclopedic and worthless otherwise. --Arm 17:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In the why-on-Earth-didn't-I-think-of-this-before department, how about considering renaming this to "List of films by graphic death scene"? --Kizor 18:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alamo[edit]

Though-sorting in progress, for reals this time around... Here I'm trying to vocalize (electrolize? Whatever.) what I've been bursting to say since the 12th. Unfortunately my wiki editing is currently a three-front war, which is an improvement over last week's four fronts, and I've been pegged down by both a full-time job and a summer exam. I'd hate to see this closed before what I believe to be considerably important points are considered.

Another of Wikipedia's unconventional strengths, the list of films by use of the word "fuck", lists the films that use it the most, with a cutoff point of 100. Why 100? It's an admitted arbitrary number, but one that was agreed - by consensus - to be a point where there's indisputably a great number of uses of the word. This list is no different. It says in the lead that it does not have an absolute definition of gory, it has a working standard. This standard has - again by consensus - been decided to be a workable cut-off point, that makes classifying a work as gory require no more than a smidgen of personal interpretation. This smidgen is one that's vital for "Category:Fiction by genre" to function - or for WP:OR itself to function at all. A quote from the beginning of the definition of "reliable sources" on OR: "There is no firm definition of "reliable," although most of us have a good intuition about the meaning of the word." It then goes on to state criteria to help in defining what counts, exactly like this list. It's hard to imagine harder evidence that it's acceptable to cover a subject using a working definition that requires an acceptable amount of interpretation, instead of an exact one, than this: A pillar of the project, vital to Wikipedia's existence. And there's been no debate here over whether or not the list uses an acceptable amount, only a rejection of the concept.

Articles on fiction, including a number of featured articles, use the works themselves to tell what happens in the plot. Primary sources are accepted.

After the last AfD gave reason for a tighter policy, criteria were established and the list was made to fit them. Entire sections, such as drowning, were removed altogether for not measuring up. The list was considered to be sufficiently sourced because every single item on it was considered to have acceptable primary sources, which I've discussed above. There was consensus, and the only raised objection also criticized us for covering the deaths of Jews along with the deaths of humans. In short, more wasn't done because sufficient measures were considered to have been taken. Though he was not under obligation to do so, it's a pity that the nominator did not use PROD or start discussion to call attention to the matter and see in detail if the article could be made to meet his standards before attempting to remove it altogether. --Kizor 15:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - even assuming arguendo that the steps taken regarding tightening the list are sufficient to address the OR issue (by the way, if kept or projectified you might want to run the filter again as the last I heard neither freezing nor asphyxiation were particularly gory), it does not address the concern that the list violates WP:NOT#DIR. No amount of tightening of the definition of "gory" changes the fact that the films in each section are unrelated to each other except in happening to have a death scene of a certain type and that films from different sections don't even have that in common. Any number of examples from the list have been offered to show that the films are unrelated to each other in terms of plot, style, genre or theme. Otto4711 15:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assumed that they were sufficient because of the whole "agreement and no objections" thing. Running the filter will likely be a good idea - heck, it's casual maintenance for Wikipedia lists - but there are ways of making both of those things gory. Face (and not head) dipped in liquid nitrogen, shattered against a table, sort of thing. But this is a matter for cleanup more than AfD. And I've been getting to WP:NOT#DIR, thanks for bringing it up. --Kizor 15:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (although I'm amazed that people spend time on such a thing) I don't find the concers regarding WP:V and WP:NOR to be valid, the film is the source for each claim made. (What do you want a timestamp for when discribed event occurs?) As for decisions of what to include/not include, I think editors do that on every article that isn't original research. Is the concept here notable? I'm sure we can find some reliable sources that discuss these types of scenes. Such sources really should be consulted and listed within the article as this would help address the the WP:NOT#DIR issue, but the criteria in the intro suggests that this collection is not random. -MrFizyx 18:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_films_by_gory_death_scene_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1140559998"