Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of traps in the Saw film series

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 no consensus, with several good points on both sides of the discussion. Trimming of the article, to better avoid arguments under WP:NOT, seems to be a good suggestion.--Kubigula (talk) 03:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

List of traps in the Saw film series

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

Largely original research, summarizing elements of the Saw horror film series; does not establish notability of subject. —tregoweth (talk) 04:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Notability aside, it strongly fails WP:OR and WP:V. --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete trivial list. Wryspy 07:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The movies themselves are the references. The movie is notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I think people are confusing "original research" and "primary sources". The movie itself is a primary source, and describing what you see is not original research. Original research would be, say, writing that you think the director got the idea for decapitation from some previous movie. Unless of course that fact was printed by someone else or in the DVD commentary. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The movies are not a third party source. alexis+kate=? 08:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The traps play a giant part in the films, and are as notable as Jigsaw himself. It's a good addition to the series pages, and is not trivial at all. With a bit of clean-up, online interviews could give more references. Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 23:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Original research is "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories". All of the information here is easily verifiable. And considering the traps are very notable in the context of the series, they should be in an article. We have articles on "Magical_objects_in_Harry_Potter" and other various articles focusing on 'objects' in various media. Its hardly a 'trivial list' page and goes into specific detail about the traps, and external information such as original ideas and interviews. I'd also like to thank tregoweth for taking the time and good faith to notify me that he/she was nominating this for deletion. (I'm being sarcastic: they didn't.)--CyberGhostface 00:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Very cool information for fans of the series, but this stuff is far from notable or encyclopedic--the reality is it's a bloated trivia fork. I would recommend moving this stuff to a Saw fan page or some such. I'd probably vote to get rid of most of those Saw character articles too.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • In response to the above comment, I'm not about to yank out a link to the "other crap exists" essay because I find such responses obnoxious. I will, however, say that I'd happily vote "delete" if anyone ever nominated Magical objects in Harry Potter for deletion. I can't stand that kid.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • So what articles concerning fictional characters/objects would you agree to keep, then? What's 'notable' under your guidelines?--CyberGhostface 00:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I say nuke 'em all. But no one cares what I say, generally. And ask not about my notability guidelines; WP:N and WP:NOT were written by somebody else, but I do my best to support them.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment JackofHearts, would it be fair to say you've been engaging in borderline if not outright canvassing[1][2][3][4], or am I misunderstanding this guideline?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh my, I wasn't aware of that rule. What's the consequence? Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 00:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • He notified people who had previously worked on the article that it was up for deletion. Would you prefer them not to have a say in this discussion? Everyone he notified were all regulars and they had a right to know.--CyberGhostface 00:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • It turns out you did misunderstand the guideline. See WP:CANVAS#Friendly_notices.--CyberGhostface 01:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I dunno..... wouldn't those editors who worked on putting together the trivia forks be predisposed to keeping them? That's tantamount to targeting a group up people with a certain point of view.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Hardly. "Notifying all editors who substantively edited or discussed the article or project" counts as a friendly notice.--CyberGhostface 01:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes, you are right that heavy editors of a given article would like to be notified BUT the people he canvassed all happen to be editors who will want to keep this unencycopedic collection of trivia. It just doesn't look good.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
            • Only because you want to see it that way. He notified four users, all who were major contributors to the article. If he had spammed every member of the WikiHorror project that would be another thing entirely. You're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill here.--CyberGhostface 01:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
              • Perhaps I am. In any case, I'm sure the closing admin will discount any inappropriate or poorly reasoned votes.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
                • Right, because only deletionist votes count.--CyberGhostface 03:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• The people I messaged were those I believed to have a higher opinion of what should stay and what should be considered necessary for the Saw pages. I wasn't going to try to find people who didn't like the page, especially since it would seem most of them are anon vandals. While I was aware that some of the people would probably want the page to stay, I wasn't sure on others, but figured their opinion ought to be acknowledged. Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 01:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Just because the article doesn't follow some of wikipedia's guidelines doesn't mean we should scrap it all-together. It could be made into a better article. Gamer am I 01:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC) — Gamer am I (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep Say for example you'd heard a lot about the Saw films and were interested in watching one, but you had a severe phobia that might crop up in the film (fire, needles, rats, etc). You could look at that film's article and find a link for more infromation on that particular trap, hence the need for the list of traps in the Saw series. Because of her vaso-vagal trypanophobia, my girlfriend had to go to hospital because of the needle pit scene in Saw II (severe panic attacks leading to a loss in blood-pressure and fainting). I'm not saying the article could save lives, but it could prevent similar situations. Also, those of us who have edited the page have worked really hard to keep the information relative and encyclopedic. With the upcoming release of Saw IV a section of the page has become a little speculatory in nature, therefore I propose the AfD is postponed until a week after the release of the film (November 2). That way the speculative information can be cleaned up and the article itself will be encyclopedic once more. Anyone agree : ViperBlade ^Talk!! 01:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Where do I begin..... I think a couple of sentences in the Saw series article about how the films have been called disgusting and sadistic by critics would be sufficient to dissuade the squeamish from wanting to see these movies (or maybe that picture of Lynn with her head blown up would do the trick). Besides, we're not out to create public saftey notices; this is an encylopedia. And surely we all can admire how hard some of you worked on the article. That's why I suggest you move the content to a more suitable place, like to a Saw fan page or message board.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course we're not out to create public safety notices, else this'd be called Warnipedia. My comment above was one of many examples as to why the page is potentially useful. Also, I disagree that the page fails WP:OR, as the films, trailers, and released promotional media themselves are sources. Would you agree to the postpone though? -- ViperBlade ^Talk!! 01:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep after a substantial trimming. This is a big plot element, and there is already some out of universe information on the page. If the excessive plot summaries, and especially the messages to the subjects, were removed this would be on it's way to an encyclopedic list. I'm thinking List of James Bond gadgets with more background information. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 02:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see that one deleted too!--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 02:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Harry Potter now has 12 subcategories and its own Portal. How do you determine how much is too much? Is there some objective measure so that, say, 5 people would read the criteria, and come up with an article of the same length and depth? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's a big plot element, shouldn't it go in the movies' articles? Elements of films (and fiction) should only have articles if they transcend their origins and become well-known outside of their original context -- like, say, lightsabers and phasers. (So I guess I agree that List of James Bond gadgets should go as well.) —tregoweth (talk) 03:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. Some traps aren't contained to one movie each, and it's more neat to just stick them all together. Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 05:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: This article holds too much information to be deleted, the time people have spent creating and adding to the page is unbelievable. The article may in fact be too lengthy, but this is no reason for it to be deleted. Personally, the people behind the article should be given time to make the article concise and to the point. Like someone has already said; it is ideal for those that are unaware of the content of the films, and have certain preferences and reasons for not watching certain scenes. If they read the article, and feel they would much rather not see the films due to a certain trap, it will have helped greatly. — MovieJunkie ^Talk! 15:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

On another note, the person that put this article up for deletion has probably (I have no idea of course) never contributed to the article, and has never had the need for the information. It is too easy these days to put an article up for deletion, just because you don't think it's relevant, resourceful or for the basic reason that you don't believe it should be a wikipedia article. Great consideration should be taken to those articles that are plentiful in information, and have taken great time to construct. (Before anyone questions it; I have never contributed to the article whilst being on wikipedia, though I have edited related articles.) — MovieJunkie ^Talk! 15:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, you're right; I haven't contributed to the article. But it doesn't matter how much work went into the article if the subject is non-encyclopedic. —tregoweth (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The question isn't whether people have worked hard on writing the information; the question is whether Wikipedia is the proper venue for this sort of writing. It is possible to put a lot of effort into something completely inappropriate.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 02:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Agreed with --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back --Rutherfordjigsaw 16:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you've mistaken him with someone else. The Fat Man is probably the most pro-deletion person on this discussion.--CyberGhostface 16:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep: Mistaken from last post, --Rutherfordjigsaw 18:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Keep Think about the article how long they would be if the traps should standing there, if cause, maybe just make own article for the traps for each movie. --Rutherfordjigsaw 20:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You just voted twice, btw.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No, he's just clarifying a previous mistake. No need to assume bad faith.--CyberGhostface 02:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

(admin note) Combined these three !votes, and struck two of them. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: All the articles related to Saw would be incomplete if the article is deleted. --Morton Christopher 07:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed  ViperBlade ^Talk!! 19:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Unnecessary. The info in the article can neatly fit into the articles about the films. AniMate 03:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not particularly notable, somewhat listcrufty, and not really all that necessary. What's next? List of allusions to Poe in Nabokov's Lolita? This kind of thing is probably better covered in the context of the main article. MookieZ 04:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Necessary and notable, because it concerns crucial elements of a major theater released film series with even more sequels en route, meaning notability and interest in this list will assuredly continue to grow over time. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If this was merely in-universe plot summary I'd see how this might be considered fair game for deletion. Yet, I can't find too much substance in the points it was nominated for. The editors brought in a good deal of cited real-world information from primary and secondary sources that demonstrate notability and don't qualify as original research. Shallon Michaels 16:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, edit accordingly. These are more appropriate in a list then in the articles. WP:OR doesn't really apply here. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Wikipedia is about adding information, not removing. Ryan4314 00:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, just in case you weren't being completely sarcastic, that's not what Wikipedia is about... I suggest reading the The five pillars for starters. Then check out WP:NOT. It will blow your mind.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 02:29, 11 September 2007 (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.