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 Merge to List of Saw characters, except Amanda Young. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 21:12Z

Lynn Denlon[edit]

Also nominating the following related pages:

Delete all - Wikipedia is not the place for detailed plot summaries masquerading as articles about the characters. Otto4711 04:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete all My favorite type of AfD! There are far too many of this type of article. A character in a movie is not an actual subject unless they are covered in some non trivial manner outside the film. Personally I don't even like merging into a list of characters page as all we end up with is a list of encyclopedic character specific plot summaries. --Daniel J. Leivick 05:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stronger delete all Daniel J. Leivick is dead-on. I'm hard pressed to think of many memorable characters from the last twenty years of cinema and television - but art crit aside, who cares? Why would anyone care? Start a fan site or something! (this same sentiment extends to the billions of Simpsons spin-off articles, in case anyone was wondering) --Action Jackson IV 05:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am with you on those Simpsons articles. I would nominate a slew of them, but it would be too tough a fight. --Daniel J. Leivick 05:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even stronger delete all per nom. Realkyhick 06:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These articles are nothing more than plot summaries. There is nothing to justify their existance apart from the movie articles. janejellyroll 05:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's my deletion reason. MER-C 09:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I suggest merging the useful information into the List of Saw characters page, with the exception of Amanda's page, as there is info in there that has to do with 3 films and comic book, as well as behind-the-scenes developement and the history of the character that was unexplored in any of the films. Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 06:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all except Amanda. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 09:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Janejellyroll. Completely unsourced. MER-C 09:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All, because of the motives of the delete voters! Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Consider instead the harm to benifit ratio of deleting, is easily in favour of keeping. Mathmo ^Talk 10:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with WP:NOT, which says in relevant part: "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." Otto4711 13:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all, except Amanda Young - these articles say nothing that the summary article can't put together. Less noteworthy than the mass of Gundam-related mobile suit articles that was deleted last month. Iceberg3k 15:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all except Amanda Young - As Amanda appears in multiple films, her complete character information cannot be found in any of the three film's individual articles. Mcr29 16:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Amanda Young - Stoph 17:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Merge, Redirect the nomination says it well. Unless the article on the series becomes bloated the character info should be there with a redirect, and only when the article exceeds a reasonble length should major charachters get articles. --Kevin Murray 17:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, especially Amanda Young First off, I'd like to thank Otto for notifying me about the AFD nominations, as most people would have done. (I'm being sarcastic, for those who don't know, as he completely neglected to do so). If any of them stay, Amanda should as she has appeared in all three films as well as a comicbook. As for the others, except for Lynn and Jeff, all of them have appeared in at least two movies. If we're going to delete these articles, we might as well delete 90% of the other fictional character articles.--CyberGhostface 18:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all, except Amanda - Unless each article has significant out of universe information, they should all be in one large "List of Saw characters". Amanda is like Jigsaw, a major componant of each film, although that it is unknown until the third film. Research needs to be done to find out of universe information for her and Jigsaw, but the character should have her own page. The rest are minor and not too much out of universe info will probably be found about them, though that isn't suggesting that it shouldn't be tried. But I agree with Otto that we shouldn't masquerade expanded plot summaries as character descriptions. Wiki isn't an indiscriminate collection of information, but that doesn't mean we can't make these characters encyclopedic. One list, contain casting information, person reflection by the actors on the characters, and a bried description about who the character was in context with the film. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 18:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except Amanda Young - Amanda is a major character in all three Saw movies, and there is other information on her page, including character development/history. Xxxmidnightxxx 19:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would also like to note that these articles aren't 'detailed plot summaries masquerading as articles about the characters.' Each of these articles focuses specifically on a certain character's arc goes into more detail on their characters than the others involved.--CyberGhostface 21:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point out in each of the various articles where the "real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance" is please? Otto4711 21:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point it out in 90% of the fictional character articles? And its not a 'work' like a film or novel. Wikipedia also states that "If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article." Going into detail about the entire character's life would make the film articles too wieldy.--CyberGhostface 21:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

90% of the fictional character articles are not under discussion here. These articles are. "Some other shitty article exists" is not a justification for more shitty articles. If you find articles that you feel are of the same poor quality as these charcter arc plot summaries, nominate them for deletion. Otto4711 21:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on responding to my other point.--CyberGhostface 22:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FICT is a guideline. Articles created under FICT still have to pass WP:NOT, which is a policy and supercedes FICT. These articles do not pass NOT because they are nothing but character-specific plot summaries. How's that for responding to your other point? Otto4711 19:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that good. As for real world context, I can very easily find interviews with the actors and writers concerning their inspirations. The case of Amanda Young (which I doubt you even read before nominating it for AFD) details her actress's inspiration for the character as well as works of literature that helped her further her role.--CyberGhostface 20:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find the reliable sources, then please do find them and add them before the AFD closes and then we can all see if they now pass. While you're at it, try trimming some of the minute-by-minute stuff out of the plot summaries. Otto4711 20:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all but Amanda Young, per WP:FICT. Most of the articles lack references, and could be included in the article on Saw. The Young article has a few references, but I wonder how to determine if they are reliable [WP:RS]] and independent? Radiofree.com? Crave.com? Are they fansites or do they have a more substantial basis? Inkpaduta 22:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're both professional websites that have interviewed Shawnee Smith on her character. Frankly, I wouldn't mind everyone but Amanda being merged if it has to be done. If anything, thats what Otto should have done in the first place instead of attempting to eradicate everything from the wiki.--CyberGhostface 22:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all, except Amanda Young - Amanda is one of the main characters in the Saw films, right up there with Jigsaw himself. The others should be merged though. - Gadgetfusion 17:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, except Amanda Young I don't see why this content should be merged. JuJube 02:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all All characters are a lot more intricate then could be explained in a simple plot summary on the main articles. TheWikitruthisOutThere 05:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Enlighten me, how are they more complex than "this character did/thought/said this thing that made Jigsaw think he/she was worthy of death"? They're horror movie victims. Iceberg3k 18:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You've obviously never seen the films, or else you wouldn't have made such an ignorant statement. There ARE characters in the Saw series who would fit your viewpoint, the ones who appear in one scene and are dispatched gruesomely because they go against Jigsaw's life philosophy. If you have confused these characters with the ones in these articles, then you are grossly mistaken. All of these are complex characters with their own motivations, histories and secrets, many of whom have appeared in more than one film. Calling characters like Jeff and Matthews mere horror film victims in the same line as the horny teenagers from the Jason films does them a great disservice.--CyberGhostface 20:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nope, wrong again, I have seen the movies. They're just horror movie victims with more screen time and slightly better backstory. Their profiles might be high enough to justify a larger mention on a fansite, but WP isn't a fansite. These characters fail WP:NOTE one and all, with the possible exception of Amanda. Iceberg3k 05:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - All of them were the protagonists of their respective films. You'd be better off classifying characters like Xavier as 'horror movie victims with more screen time' as it doesn't fit these ones at all. In the case of Adam and Lawrence, the entire first film revolved around them.--CyberGhostface 18:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least Amanda and any others that have WP:RS, and redirect the rest, keeping the history. John Vandenberg 06:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All, but keep Amanda and Jigsaw 87.118.102.154 10:18, 17 February 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.