Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films by gory death scene (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Buck  ets  ofg 02:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

List of films by gory death scene

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete the article was nominated once previously with a result of no consensus. The article is an indscriminate collection of information along with being a repository of loosely-associated topics. The fact that a film has one or more "gory death scenes" is not sufficient to relate it to another such film. Many of the "keep"s from the last round were variations on WP:ILIKEIT. There are also POV issues in deciding whether a film death is "gory" enough to qualify.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 22:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 22:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.  bibliomaniac 1  5  05:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I'm feeling torn about this one.  It potentially could be useful, and it isn't an indiscriminate list in the sense that a list of pizza parlors in St. Louis would be. Crypticfirefly 06:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: To explain what I mean by "useful" I mean as an aid to navigating Wikipedia as well as "useful" as a general directory. But holy damn what a list!  If this winds up getting deleted, I hope it can be moved to Wikisource. Crypticfirefly 03:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I know it's subjective, but I like referencing; especially if I'm looking for a new horror/gore flick —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.253.171.226 (talk) 06:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete And I like gory scenes! But this is just too damn vague and overarching, potentially covering thousands of films. Per nom, an indiscriminate collection of info. -- Pig manTalk to me 06:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete To generalised. The list is already filled extremely loosly associated groups. Could be categorised per group listing.--Dacium 06:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the idea seems like one that could be executed within Wikipedia standards (why not "List of films featuring death by asphyxiation"?), but when thought about further, limitless expansion becomes a problem, and it's better to just cut that off at the bud. JuJube 07:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep list content correspond to definition of scope. List in line with WP:LISTS. Nominator should take his other concerns to the article's talk page, unless he is only interested in deletion. -- User:Docu
 * WP:LISTS deals with the form of lists. If the content of a list violates actual policy, then conformity with the list guidelines is irrelevant. Otto4711 07:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I respect your opinion on this even if I disagree with you.
 * Besides I don't share your understanding what "loosely-associated topics" are. Oddly, you seem to use this exclusively to create many requests on AfD for longstanding lists. -- User:Docu
 * Loosely-associated topics are ones which are connected through incidental similarities. Apples, fire trucks and red giant suns are all red, but beyond the coincidence of color they share no similarities which would warrant including them together on an encyclopedic list. A film about the French Revolution has nothing in common with Friday the 13th just because both involve scenes of decapitation, but this list would lump such films together based solely on that one commonality. That is simply insufficient association between the subjects to warrant a list. Otto4711 17:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as an indiscriminate and subjective list unlike say pizza parlours in St. Louis which would be a non-notable list of discriminating information. MLA 11:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no set criteria. "Gory" may be subjective. -- † Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 18:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete yet another "List of films with/featuring/involving/by whatever" that amounts to an indiscriminate list. Arkyan 18:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * delete per nom and WP:NOT. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This list meets WP:LIST: aids navigation and is informative in a morbid way (but who's to say there's anything wrong with that?).  I don't see how categorization by form of death qualifies as "loosely-associated topics".  -- Black Falcon 21:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What is the relationship between, for example, Apocalypto, a film set in the closing days of the Mayan civilization, and I Spit on Your Grave, set in the United States in the 1970s, other than they contain "death by violent organ removal"? The only thing that the items have in common is that a character dies in a similar fashion. Otto4711 22:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you answered your own question. The fashion of death they portray is something they have in common.  Now granted, you or I may not think this association is particularly interesting, but then again, I don't find the subject of Oriel College (FA on the main page today) particularly riveting (no offense to the editors of that article). -- Black Falcon 20:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the manner of death of a character is what they have in common. That is all they have in common. There is no commonality between The Evil Dead and Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers: The Movie other than they both have a death scene involving dismemberment (which, by the way, I question that MMPR has any "gory" death scenes at all) and this one trivial intersection makes the list an improper loose association. There is no commonality between Gremlins 2 and Universal Soldier other than a "death by blendering" (which, U.S. was a "wood chippering" so that's even less commonality) which makes the list an improper loose association. There is no commonality between The Day After and Jaws 2 beyond that each has a character who burns to death, making listing them together an improper loose association. Items on a list need to have more in common with each other than the items on this list do, under WP:NOT. Otto4711 21:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You are taking a very broad interpretation of WP:NOT. WP:NOT is for lists of loosely-associated "quotations, aphorisms, or persons", phonebooks, and business directories.  Only the first one might (note my emphasis) be applicable.  Note that all of your examples are of the type "no commonality ... other than".  Other than suggests that there is a commonality.  Whether that commonality is sufficient is a different matter.  You believe it's not; I believe it is.  Obviously those editors who created and edited this article believe it is.  You or I may not find the association interesting enough so that it isn't "loose", but that does not imply that it is an inherently loose association.  Rather it is a reflection of our personal preferences. -- Black Falcon 23:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The exact wording is "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)." (italics added, bold in original). These are examples of loosely-associated topics, not an exhaustive list of them. This is a list of loosely-associated topics, and if you don't think that the association of the films qualifies under the policy then it certainly does as a losse association of fictional characters who have nothing in common but mode of death. And the strength of the association has nothing to do with whether the associated items are "interesting." I have not said one word about whether this list is "interesting" or not as WP:INTERESTING is not a valid argument for inclusion. Otto4711 23:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I did notice the wording and that's why I wrote "might" above instead of "doesn't". WP:NOT can only apply if it is indeed proven that this is a loose association.  How can you prove it?  My point is that the fact that you think it is "loose" is only your interpretation resulting, in my opinion, from your lack of interest in the association.  "Interesting" is not a valid reason for inclusion, but "Uninteresting" is not a valid reason for deletion.  If the consensus view is that the association is indeed "loose", then alright.  But as long as it is the opinion of just a few editors, I think it ought to be kept and improved. -- Black Falcon 00:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have offered a number of examples of how this is a loose association. I have offered multiple combinations of films included on the list and asked what they have in common other than a character dying a certain way. No one has offered up anything to refute the notion that the examples are anything other than loosely associated. And I have not suggested either that this list is uninterested or that the level of interest in the list is a reason for deleting it. Now. Can you explain how the films listed here are not a loose association or not? Otto4711 00:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You have offered multiple combinations of films that are associated only by a character dying a certain way. You asked what they have in common other than this?  The simple answer is: nothing (at least that I know of)!  However, this is not proof of "loose association".  You are assuming a priori that "a character dying a certain way" is a loose association.  That is only an assumption.  Only once that assumption is accepted, is WP:NOT applicable.  However, I dispute that assumption, and thus think it should be kept. -- Black Falcon 02:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Which frankly strikes me as a variation of WP:ILIKEIT. Otto4711 15:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As I have commented above, your arguments strikes me as a variation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There is an association/commonality between the films, which you (for whatever reason) don't like and don't seem to think is sufficient.  My argument is mostly a counter to your insistence on the presence of at least two commonalities between films to establish a "non-loose" association.  -- Black Falcon 19:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I don't think you said anything about WP:IDONTLIKEIT before but your arguments all tend to blend together after a while. Anyway, yes, things on a list should generally have more than one thing in common to be retained here. Bananas, canaries, some diamonds and the Sun are all yellow, but List of yellow things would be deleted as a loose association. Films that share no elements of plot, theme, setting, time period or style, but have in common a particular method of killing a character (but even that's not really a common feature since even within the subsets of death types there is a wide variety of implements and manners of death), are similarly lossely associated. I don't think it's the slightest bit unreasonable to expect that a listing of films have something more in common than a few feet of footage depicting a similar thing. We would not have List of films with shoes in them or List of films that show bunny rabbits or any other of a wide variety of unrelated loose associations and this one is no better. Otto4711 19:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My comments that attributed your arguments to a lack of "interest" on your part in the topic was my (perhaps too) subtle way of suggesting WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As for my argument, they blend together, do they?  I have a hard time seeing how one object can blend "together" with itself.  My argument from the start has been that the association is not "loose", thus rejecting the basis of your nomination.  The number of associations is not as relevant as the nature of the association(s).  List of yellow things that are round, weigh less than 1kg, edible, and can be penetrated by a butter knife is not an improvement over List of yellow things even though the former has 5 associations versus the latter's 1.  You think this association is loose?  Fine, that's your personal preference.  I don't consider it loose.  Yes, the article needs significant improvement (specific criteria, additional information on the films, better sourcing, etc.), but I disagree that the concept itself is fundamentally flawed.  -- Black Falcon 19:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Resetting indent. Fine, even if you reject the idea of the number of associations in favor of the quality, which is a mistake, the quality ofg the associations here is also poor, as I've pointed out several times. Apocalypto and I Spit on Your Grave. They are associated only by the "death by violent organe removal" scene. But what does knowing that both of these films have "violent organ removal" tell us about either film or about the films in relation to each other? The former is a high-budget prestige project about the final days of the Mayan civilization. The other is a low-budget exploitation-style film about a woman avenging her rape. What kind of quality association do these films have with each other? Fargo is a critically-acclaimed Academy Award-winning black comedy about a heavily pregnant sheriff investigating murder and blackmail. Universal Soldier is a science fiction/action film about Vietnam soldiers who are cryonically frozen, mindwiped and unleashed as super-cyborgs. Where is the high-quality association between those films, despite each having a scene where a man gets fed through a woodchipper? The Day After has a scene of unnamed extras burning to death in a nuclear explosion in Kansas in the 1980s. The quality association with Young Sherlock Holmes, in which young women are burned to death by hot wax or oil during the Victorian era, is what exactly? None. None of these films has any association with each other, from either a quantitative or a qualitative standpoint, beyond a death by a similar method, and even that one similarity in many or most cases don't even match up. No similarities, no commonalities, loose association, bad list. Otto4711 23:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind--I'm capitalizing the "Resetting indent" part of your comment so that it's easier to find and distinguish. I understand your points and will readily admit that the association that exists between the movies is not among the most relevant or significant (I disagree, however, with the idea that it is irrelevant or insiginificant).  However, consider this.  Henry Antchouet is a Gabonese football attacker.  Jono Bacon is a writer and software developer based in the United Kingdom.  These people seem to share nothing in common other than that they were both born in 1979 and are both classified in Category:1979 births.  Does this mean that the "by birth" categories are based on a "loose association"?  Of course not.  You ask for sources that demonstrate the cultural significance of "gory deaths".   There are plenty here, here, and here, and you could get a lot more by using various different search terms.  There is cultural interest in and plenty of publishes sources about death scenes in film.  There are directories of deaths in films (more than one), articles about disturbing deaths scenes, and plenty of blogs and online polls about the "best" or "worst" death scenes (which usually don't count as RS's, but are an indication of cultural interest in the subject).  -- Black Falcon 00:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if there are so many other indexes of gory deaths on the web, this one is hardly necessary, is it? And a cursory look at a few of the things your google searches turned up doesn't seem to indicate that they are analyses of the cultural significance of gory death scenes in films. But since I never suggested that there wasn't interest in the topic, your point isn't really that relevant. As far as the "by birth" categories, my understanding is that they are maintined in some measure for legal reasons because of WP:BLP. But of course you know that the existence of that series of categories has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of this article so I'm not sure why you even brought them up. Otto4711 01:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I brought in the analogy to illustrate the point that two entries can be categorized/listed together even if they share only one commonality. As regards your first point about the necessity of the list, I will give three replies.  First, the online directors of gory deaths are indexes of deaths by movie or deaths by actress (not deaths by type, which is the case here).  Second, in addition to indexes of gory deaths, there are articles which address the subject.  Third, ... almost everything on Wikipedia is taken from online sources.  If we follow the principle of "why write on it if it's already on the web?", we'd need to eliminate all but a few hundred or few thousand WP articles which exclusively use book sources. -- Black Falcon 02:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Categories and lists serve different purposes and are subject to different rules and guidelines. Things that would not survive as lists routinely exist as categories because of the differences in the two organizationsl systems. Citing a category tree as support for a list article, especially when the category tree may be maintained for specific legal reasons, is a poor analogy. Otto4711 03:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, granted, the analogy may not have been a particularly good one (I thought it applicable because the basic purpose of categories and lists is essentially the same--to organize information/entries), especially if what you say about issues of legality is true (I'm not doubting your honesty, it just is obvious from your comment that you yourself are not entirely certain). -- Black Falcon 04:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, possibly split The information for the list should be kept, but perhaps split the sections up into separate lists to get a better focus on the type of death scene. A separate intro could be included for each type of death to explain their significance in films. This list should obviously be expanded, and if it's split up, it will be easier to focus on adding films on each individual death scene. --Nehrams2020 05:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but strong cleanup. I don't see how crucifixion in The Passion of the Christ, The Last Temptation of Christ, Jesus Christ Superstar, Spartacus makes a gory scene film. With this logic every film where someone gets shot or executed is a gory scene film too, so imagine what we would get here. Hoverfish Talk 08:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Which demonstrates the incurable WP:NPOV problems this article has, since there is no possible objective standard for whether a death scene is "gory" or not. Otto4711 23:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment using some logic in including entries does not automatically make for incurable WP:NPOV problems, as the same could be said for pretty much ANY list or category. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Why do you keep trying to drag other articles and lists into this when it is this article that is under discussion? Otto4711 22:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep With a cleanup and proper guidelines.--Tenka Muteki 08:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, maybe split, definitely rename to something more accurate and more encyclopedic (like List of films categorized by unnatural methods of death). bd2412  T 12:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per all the reasons already given, plus this is a highly-detailed, information-packed, well-organized list that could not easily be replaced with a category. Gore-hounds are extremely interested in just this information, making it of cultural significance. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I like horror movies as much as anyone, I find this list to be crufty and non-encyclopedic. Liberal Classic 18:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - per WP:LIST. Gory death scenes are sufficient commonality. - Peregrine Fisher 01:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - and couldn't there have been a better way to address what is and isn't an appropriate list about films? --JayHenry 21:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article is useful for categorising and/or listing films notable for gory and cruel death scenes. This, coupled with the manner of death in question, speeds research into various modes of violence used the splatter/horror/ultra violent genre. However I agree the article needs some guidelines in the nature of what to include and where -- it is too easy to degenerate into a "cool list of splatter scenes". --Jquarry 05:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The information is useful, e.g., for someone researching violence in movies. Argyrios 21:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Possibly split, criteria would be useful too. Provides an opportunity to expand the horizons of the film viewer who looks specifically for this sort of thing. Executioners has a prominent death by explosion in it, but that's not what it's about...(how do you format a link to an article that hasn't been written yet, anyway?)Cmdr Spock 18:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)--Cmdr Spock 18:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT and the subjective nature of the criterion (gory? that'll be WP:ATTributable right enough). Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:06, 2 March 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.