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, please see talk page for analysis Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of traps in the Saw film series[edit]

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

Deleted at a previous AFD but relisting here due to concerns raised at DRV. My recommendation is to delete as indiscriminate trivia about fiction and original research. Stifle (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did read the DRV and I also read the AFD that preceded it. The article was correctly deleted and the article's supporters should count their blessings that the closing admin decided to reverse himself. The article remains out of compliance with a number of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It is time now either to bring the article into compliance or delete it. Otto4711 (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it was correctly deleted, it wouldn't have been relisted again. The article's detractors should count their blessings that they are getting a do-over. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I ask what you envision would be the ideal presentation of this article if you and others could devote time to it? Would there be as much plot detail? What kind of real-world context would be explored? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ideal presentation would be more focus on the traps and less focus on some of the excessive plot information that's occurred recently. In addition, as I explained on my post, more focus on information outside of the films...what impact the traps themselves have had on popular culture, reception they may have received, information on the concept and creation of the traps, etc.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So can we not include that information in each film article? It just seems like each film is trap-driven, so why can't these details be explored at the separate article? I am not seeing the need for this particular topic. Why not Saw (film series)#Traps as a component of all the movies? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not strongly against the idea of a merge if that's the only alternative to deletion. But a section about "Traps" was once on the Jigsaw Killer article and it grew too long and was put back into a seperate article. Detailing the traps on the film articles would already make them more plot heavy, and they already need to be less.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can agree that plot detail could be cut back, no matter where we focus on the traps. I was browsing the Saw film articles, though, and they struck me as awfully empty considering the content of this particular list. Can the content not be trimmed and redistributed? I mean, as the article stands, it sounds like an accumulation of plot detail and does not use reliable sources. If the article is kept, I really hope that improvement can be seen. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If push comes to shove, I could agree to that proposition. I don't know, maybe the traps could be redistributed to their articles about the film that they appeared in. At this point I'm just getting weary of the whole thing, so your idea would probably be the best solution if this article gets deleted, which it probably will given how things are turning out.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you believe that the list of Bond gadgets or the list of Potter items fail Wiki-policies and guidelines the way that this article does, feel free to nominate them for deletion. This other article is just as bad is no excuse for keeping either article. Otto4711 (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I stated earlier, I have no interest in disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. I don't think they should be deleted either. My only argument was that if they were to be nominated for AFD, they would probably have better chances of being kept only because they're more popular and would have more people running to its defense.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which includes "Wikipedia articles are not simply plot summaries", is most certainly official Wikipedia policy. A mere "mention" of a trap in a review does not constitute a reliable source that is substantively about the traps in general or a particular trap. Otto4711 (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete. Fancruft. Not covered in reliable sources. Just because it can't be merged into the film or the fim series doesn't mean we need an article on it. The article consists of WP:OR and WP:PLOT information almost entirely. Links to photos on EBAY as sources??? Links to Photobucket shots of the script as sources???? How did this survive AfD before? I strongly suggest that the closing admin look at the article prior to closing this if there is even a hint that it might be closed as "no consensus, default to keep". There isn't a single reliable source posted. Not even to reviews of the movie. Doesn't belong on wikipedia." Protonk (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Protonk used the word "fancruft", but this is clearly not an "I don't like it" argument. It's a serious concern about the existence of secondary sources—one that has not been adequately responded too, I might add. If someone says "Delete this cruft", instead of jumping on them for using the word "cruft", you should complain instead that they have not provided a reason for deletion. When Stifle says "Per the general weight of comments." in his closing argument, I suspect that means that he gives strong weight to a well-presented argument like this, and little or no weight to arguments like "Strong Keep Don't see why it shouldn't be kept." and delete comments that mention cruft with no rationale. Pagrashtak 21:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both WP:USEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT are based in an essay, not Wikipedia policy, and the essay is prefixed with the notice that "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints, and they may be heeded or not based upon your judgement and discretion" (the italics are mine). The fact that Deon555 has already referenced it should provide some degree of confirmation to its encyclopedic value. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article did get adequate time to respond to criticisms. The first AFD was over a year ago. Information included with the DVD releases are not independent, thus they fail WP:RS. Otto4711 (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This deletion discussion has been hopelessly corrupted by canvassing attempts by Wikiproject Saw via their October newsletter delivered to users by CyberGhostface (talk · contribs) (example). The newsletter implores readers to go and argue here why this article should be kept, not help decide it's fate, but actively ask them to vote to keep it. Newsletter has been delivered to 28 editors [1]. Plus, CyberGhostface canvassed someone else to vote here [2] which resulted in the person responding affirmatively [3] and then voted here to keep the article [4]. Discussion should be immediately closed as hopelessly corrupted. AfD is NOT a vote. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? The first time (after the article was deleted) numerous people e-mailed me because they weren't even aware of the discussion going on in the first place until after it was deleted. Why shouldn't the people who edit the article in the first place not be aware of the discussion of whether or not the article be kept? I also asked for help in improving the article. If no one's aware of the fact that it's in danger of deletion, why would they bother to try to improve the article? I did ask for help, but I told them to make their own arguments and look at "arguments to avoid". I also asked for help in improving the main article and to add real world information. Am I not allowed to do that? Jesus Christ. It's not as if I'm hiring a bunch of meat puppets from school and asking them to mindlessly storm the AFD with "Keeps".--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm dead serious. AfD is not a vote. Canvassing interested people encouraging them to vote keep is way, way out of line. See Wikipedia:AFD#AfD_Wikietiquette, the second to last bullet point, and Wikipedia:Canvassing. You didn't ask them to make their own arguments, you asked them to make their own arguments to keep. That is an important distinction, and is vote stacking. This AfD is corrupted by your actions. Given that you've made 348 edits to AfDs since the beginning of this year, you are certainly well aware of this concept. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last time it was deleted, various people who've contributed to the articles had no idea that a discussion was even going on and were only aware of it once the article was deleted. So I thought it would be fair that since it's up for discussion again. And I wasn't "canvassing" for votes. In addition to asking them for their own argument, I asked them for help on improving the article. Or is asking for their help on improving the article against the rules as well? Heck, I'm willing to bet that the people I asked won't even show up on this AFD in the first place. If you want, I can tell them to stay out of the argument, if that makes you feel any better.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But for the record, I'm being honest in saying that I wasn't aware that asking people who've edited the articles before for their opinion was against the rules. I was just under the impression that making sockpuppets and asking people to register on your behalf was.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I told them to stay away from the AFD. Happy now?--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though I appreciate the attempt, unfortunately no I am not happy. The people who received this notice have an interest in the series and are biased in favor of the article being kept. This is why AfDs run through AfD, and not through project pages where appropriate. Else, we'd never delete anything that isn't encyclopedic. The AfD is still polluted. It's an unfortunate situation, but it's reality. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the people who I notified have even come onto the discussion, and probably wouldn't have in the first place. I mean, if it gets to the point where this AFD is bombarded with people yelling "Keep" I'll take responsibility for it but I don't see that happening now.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judging from the message you left, "apparently notifying you because you were interested is against the rules", you seem to still not understand the problem. Notifying interested editors is not the problem. The problem is that you delivered a biased message to a partisan audience. Pagrashtak 00:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I don't. I mean, if an article about Saw is up for deletion, I thought I should notify editors who worked on the article in the past, not people who haven't. And it's already a given that someone who worked on the article is going to say "Keep" regardless of what I say. And I wasn't deliberately trying to rig the system; just because I've been on AFD for a bit (the reason I have so many edits on AFD as Hammersoft said is because I keep the COI log on my watchlist to look out for vanity articles) doesn't mean I knew about this. I just knew that hiring single-purpose accounts to say what you want them to say was against the rules. Either way, told them not to come on, and if they do, I'll take responsibility for it. --CyberGhostface (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CyberGhostface, if a Saw article was up for deletion, don't you think that the editors who worked on it are more biased to keep it? Granted, I've seen editors concede that their pet projects shouldn't be part of Wikipedia, but that is the exception. Editors who have not edited the article should be more welcomed because they can pass a more objective judgment, not having any emotional investment in that particular article. Editors of good standing are involved in AFDs, and recommendations need to be more than just votes, involving considerations of policies and guidelines. If the article at risk matches the policies and guidelines as perceived by these outside editors, then the article should ultimately be okay. As you can tell here, there is not such a clear consensus -- the issue is more about the topic than the content, which I think everyone can agree warrants clean-up. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CyberGhostface, you have over 18,000 edits since 5 March 2005, many of which were in deletion discussions. This very same canvassing happened in List of traps in the Saw film series (1st nomination). In that AfD, you cited to Wikipedia:Canvassing. [5] I don't see how you now can say that you were not aware that it is inappropriate to canvass interested people and encourage them to vote keep in this discussion. I don't know what to make of it. -- Suntag ☼ 19:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the accusation. That first nomination was a year ago, and no I didn't bother to refresh myself on it when the article was renominated because I didn't recall anything in it that needed to be dredged up for this one (besides unpleasant memories), except that it was kept. And yes, I've been on Wikipedia a long time. And yes, I've participated in quite a few AFDs. And in all that time, the only time the subject of canvassing was brought up was in that AFD discussion a year ago. If I had known that 'canvassing' would have sent the Wiki-police to my door and cause such a furor like it has, why the Hell would I do it on Wikipedia in the first place? Sheesh. I'm not that stupid.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the diff Suntag. I think the crux of this is that CyberGhostface was and is aware of the Wikipedia:Canvassing guideline, but still feels it doesn't apply. He has and continues to operate under the false impression that people who have a potential stake in an article should be informed that it might be deleted, and worse that it's ok to advocate for them to vote to keep it. I hope he's finally learned his mistake, and does not repeat it in the future. It takes uninterested parties to evaluate the encyclopedic value of an article and how it meshes with our existing policies. 28 people being asked to vote to keep this article does absolutely nothing to further that purpose. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have and continue to operate under this? This is the first time I've done this, unless there's some other occasion I'm forgetting. (Scratch that, now someone will go through my logs and find something two years ago to disprove what I've just said...) I don't know what repeatedly hammering this is going to get: I've already taken full responsibility and told the people who edited the article not to participate in the AFD. What else am I supposed to do?--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their website is abysmal. Does anyone know if this is worth trudging to a library for a back issue? 106-108 could very well be a 1 page "feature" on page 107. Protonk (talk) 00:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE the saw films are gory crap. we dont need articles about them.--Billthevampire (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC) — Billthevampire (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Admittedly, no one will mistake them for Les enfants du paradis, but that's not the point of this discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, how about my comment mentioning the Empire article covering the methods? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment back Because no one demanded it. The original AfD ended as a no consensus, erring to keep, and the closing admin in that AfD never set a timeline to get it fixed by X-day. No one had any problems with the article afterwards. I would also point out that offers were made to improve the article in the second AfD and the subsequent DRV if the article was allowed to stay online -- and both offers were rudely ignored. (This overhaul will take at least a week or two, given the depth and scope of the article and the need to fix the references.) Now let me offer a challenge: since there were problems in the decision to close the second AfD (as per DGG's original comments in the DRV for the article) and since the article's supporters have repeatedly offered to fix the article, I am asking that this nomination be withdrawn and that the article's supporters be given two weeks to either fix it up or merge the data into the exisiting "Saw" articles. If, after, two weeks, this task is not completed, the nominator for this AfD (also the closing admin on the second AfD) can have the full right to speedy delete the article. Is that fair? Ecoleetage (talk) 12:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of editors' being "rude" about offers to "fix" articles at AFD or DRV. It's that many of us who've been around AFD for a while have far too often seen articles kept with promises that the problems with them will be addressed and then they aren't. Such promises would stand a better chance of being paid attention to if accompanied, during the course of the AFD, by actual improvements to the article or at least the location of sources that address the issues. Otto4711 (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An article of this size and depth will take a lot of time to get its references in order and to get its text in keeping with the style that some people have advocated. Expecting a quick fix is not realistic. And, besides, "many of us who've been around AFD for a while" actually have a history of saving at-risk articles. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me amongst them, in point of fact. I'm not suggesting that the article has to be perfect by the close of the AFD. What I am saying is that those wanting it kept need to demonstrate that the article has been improved, especially since this is round three (round four, really) for this article. Otto4711 (talk) 06:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually round three -- and an illegitmate one, IMHO. Again, we shouldn't be having this discussion since it became clear, as per DGG's original comments in the DRV, that the second AfD was improperly closed. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I wrote User:Stifle/Delete unless cleaned up. Stifle (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A good observation, Cornucopia, but it is easy to forget these things aren't decided by a head count. Besides, the second AfD went 13-12 in favour of keeping, but the closing admin opted to delete rather than call it as "no consensus." Ecoleetage (talk) 13:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirection is probably not warranted, as there is no obvious redirect target since the list covers multiple films, and the likelihood of someone's searching for this specific string seems pretty low. Otto4711 (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay, I just wanted everyone to keep in mind that redirection is a possibility. Thanks for the kind reply Ecoleetage. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 05:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That something is useful does not make it encyclopedic. This is a subtle, but important point that tends to be lost on many Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia is not the compendium of all knowledge. It's the compendium of all encyclopedic knowledge. There's a large difference. See also WP:EVERYTHING. Further, that other similar articles exist does not mean by default this article should stay. If that were a valid argument, someone could create 20 articles of a particular type applying to 20 different subjects, and then refute any AfD by saying "But it exists over there and there, so it should exist here". See also WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but at the same time, neither WP:EVERYTHING and WP:OTHERSTUFF is policy - they are points raised in an essay. If your read the top of the page that has those links, it clearly states: "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints, and they may be heeded or not based upon your judgement and discretion" (the italics are mine). Bud001 is not off-base in noting the inherent notability of the "Saw" films and the value of the information provided in this article. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is an essay—an essay that shows why certain arguments are not based in policies or guidelines, or or sometimes contradictory to policies or guidelines. Hammersoft is using that essay to show why this common argument is flawed—I don't see the problem here. The "may be heeded or not" means that you're free to ignore the essay and spout the flawed arguments, not that you're free to ignore why the arguments are flawed. Pagrashtak 16:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but only if you assume the arguments made by editors like Bud001 are flawed. If you step back and think about it, this is actually quite interesting. We're all looking at the same article, but some people see cruft while others see information of encyclopedic value. Who's right? I am actually enjoying all of the opinions here -- I should commend everyone who participated here, since this is one of the livelier AfD discussions I've seen in some time. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term "encyclopedic value" suffers from significant interpretation. For my part, I could see the encyclopedic value of an article titled "Traps in the Saw film series" that was something along the lines of Campbell's Soup Cans. As a subject matter in and of itself, the traps may be interesting. Personally, I have some doubts about this because of the lack of external, out of universe references on the subject. But, assuming such references could be found, I could see the encyclopedic value of such an article. If instead we had an article called "List of Campbell's Soup Cans" that detailed every single can that they've produced and the labels they've put on them, I'd consider that pretty worthless and unencyclopedic. Just because we can include something doesn't mean we should. As I noted, we're not a compendium of ALL knowledge. If you can find external, out of universe references to each and every one of these traps you might have an argument for this list. I am certain you can not. But, you can find at least a few such references for the traps as a whole, as a subject matter in and of itself. That merits something like "Traps in the Saw film series". Some material from this list might be recoverable in support of that article, but this article needs to go. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(@ Ecoleetage) I'm not assuming the argument is flawed. I read the argument, and having previously read Wikipedia policy and guidelines, came to the realization that it is not based in those policies and guidelines. The essays WP:USEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS happen to explain the rationalization I used to arrive at that conclusion, but are not the reasons I came to that decision. Does that make it clear? Pagrashtak 18:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you are coming from, yes. And I respect where you are going, too. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, of the 49 references you refer to as "reliable" and "verifiable", 8 are photos of the script (and copyvios at that), 21 are simply screenshots of a scene or storyboard, 9 are invalid e-bay auctions, one leads to a bad reference on a site, and one of the references is repeated three times. 41 out of 49 references are essentially junk. There might...might...be enough out of universe references to warrant a subject article, but not an article such as this detailing each and every trap. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and that is why I kept saying it would take at least a week or two to track down the proper references to make the article appropriate, as per WP:RS. If it is going to be fixed, it should be done correctly and not in a beat-the-clock fashion. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it can be done properly period. Try searching for these traps by name. You'll see what I mean. As a subject matter in entirety, yes. But, out of universe references for the individual traps? No. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree on that opinion -- it would probably require some offline searching in books and in horror film magazines (not every magazine has an online mirror). It can be done, but it will take some time. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The harder you have to dig, the harder you should be asking "Is this really notable?" --Hammersoft (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2008 (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.
More