Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of traps in the Saw film series (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   delete. Per the general weight of comments. Stifle (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

List of traps in the Saw film series
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

While this is fascinating stuff, it has become more of a massive plot hide-out than an informative article. It seems that all the text that can't go in the film articles gets dumped in here; I don't see why every single trap featured has to be explained in vivid detail. We're running an encyclopedia, not converting movies to novels. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :)  06:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hopeless fancruft. Belongs on its own wiki. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. I think it may be spoiler material, and who likes spoilers anyway?! --Weasel5i2 (talk) 07:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Pointless gorecruft. No independent notability. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The traps are a very significant part of a notable series, which as of now is soon to be five films and later six films. This article was nominated for deletion once, and as you can see, was kept. If it was "gorecruft" (which shows obvious bias in of itself) it probably would have been deleted. "Spoiler" material, obviously, is also hardly a valid reason for deletion, for reasons I shouldn't have to be stating. I really don't see how this has any less validity than something like Magical objects in Harry Potter besides "I like Harry Potter and don't like Saw". I do think a lot of the plot summary could be removed and be replaced with other information, such as the concept and creation of the traps, as well as maybe critical reception. The article does need work, I just don't think that makes it suitable deletion fodder.--CyberGhostface (talk) 11:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:WAX is not a reason to keep articles. We're not discussing whether the Saw series is better than whatever J.K. Rowling is doing nowadays. Also, we're not discussing the previous AFD result because it doesn't affect this one bit. Like I said in my summary, the problem doesn't lie in this being a spoiler, but rather just a long plot summary. Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  13:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring to you when I talked about spoilers, I was referring to User:Weasel5i2 whose sole argument was "this article contains spoilers, who likes spoilers?" Regarding plot summaries...the article does need to be trimmed. But it's certainly not impossible for real world information to be added, such as critical reception and behind the scenes info. The whole notion of the Saw traps have, while not as iconic as say Freddy or Jason, have become ingrained into popular culture and have been the focus of a couple of parodies in television. This is in addition to drawing comparisions with real life torture devices that the filmmakers have drawn comparision to when making them. I think deletion should only be used when it is a lost case, and I don't think this fits the criteria. My hands are pretty full at the moment, but once my plate clears up, I would be able to work on it on the future. I wouldn't have time, however, to do all this work in the span of the one week that this is up for deletion.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How are they culturally significant? There's no notability to them (note: notability is not inherited. Just because my Uncle Bob is featured in Titanic doesn't mean he needs an article). As for your "filmmakers have drawn comparisons to real torture devices" claim, how is that related? Watching Minority Report and thinking that the jetpacks used remind me of jetpacks doesn't warrant a "List of gadgets in Minority Report" article. Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  06:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability isn't inherited, true, but your comparision to your Uncle Bob is hardly a fair comparision. The traps themselves have become one of the icons of the series, I can think of quite a few outside media that have played upon the traps. And when I say "drawn comparisions", I don't mean I'm going "Duhhh...they look similar to the iron maiden" (again, your comparision is unfair) I meant the directors themselves and the reviewers have all commented on the inspirations used in constructing them and critics have also drawn comparisions with real life events...although this reviewer was in the minority, one made comparisions to the interrogation tactics being used on terrorists. (BTW, by bringing up the "We don't have an article about Minority Report gadgets", you're doing WP:WAX)--CyberGhostface (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How do these comparisons show any notability? That people can connect dots? Can you source these? Also, you misunderstood my Minority Report example; I'm saying that there's a reason why we don't create articles similar to that, not that we should create that article. Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  13:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It was in a documentary about horror films on Bravo or Starz. Either way, it's featuring legitimate coverage outside of primary sources and people outside the film and not some teenagers' geocities page. And as for the "Minority Report", it's still in the vein of "We don't have articles on X, therefore we shouldn't on Y".--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You're still misunderstanding; I'm not saying that we can't have this article because the Minority Report one doesn't exist. I'm saying that they shouldn't exist in general, hence the "there's a reason why we don't have a "List of gadgets in Minority Report" article" statement. In terms of these legitimate third-party sources, any examples? And how prominently were the traps featured? How are they notable? Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  16:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * One of them is "Going to Pieces: The Rise and Fall of the Slasher Film" which has a scene discussing the Saw films and their traps in comparision to other works of ficton.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I mean an actual source you can link to... Or should I look on the article page? Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  23:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Documentaries don't count as sources?--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Fancruft, plot summary. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 12:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment (From Saw V) "Hello, inclusionists... I want to play a game. Your article survived deletion a year ago because there was no consensus, but it has remained unchanged... where are your friends now?  By the time this tape is finished, you will have just a few more days to find a way out. At the end of those few days... you should know better than anyone, what happens then.  There is an obscure Wikipedia policy that will unlock the support you need to stop the deletion process... choose the wrong policy, however, and your article will even be barred from Deletionpedia.... make your choice."  Mandsford (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - the list could be modified to remove the plot information and keep only descriptions of the traps themselves. Alternatively, they could be merged into Saw (film series) or the individual film articles. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I suppose merging would be better than just deleting them outright if that's what I came down to..--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Strong Keep Or, at the very least, Merge into Saw (film series), as per AdamBMorgan's suggestion. I also agree with CyberGhostface's observation -- deletion should only be used when an article cannot be salvaged, and that is clearly not the case here. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How can this be salvaged, though? It doesn't contribute anything but needless trivia to the films. Again, the purpose of the articles is to inform readers of the premise of the Saw films, not walk them through every scene in the movie. Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  06:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment back The answer: Editing 101. It can actually be salvaged rather easily -- all it takes is time, focus and the ability to chop a glob of data into a streamlined work of information. Ultimately, the content would probably be better served in merging with the existing "Saw"-related articles. I would be happy to work with the article's creator in saving the article if this AfD was withdrawn. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I stated earlier...behind the scenes information, critical reception, impact, etc.--CyberGhostface (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But Wikipedia isn't a repository for "behind the scenes information". Critical reception is already covered in the film articles, and I don't even see how the traps are related to reception (the fact that reviewers mention them doesn't really do much). In terms of impact, unless you can source the significant cultural impact of the Saw traps. I think that's the very least that has to be done for this to not be a complete delete. Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  13:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. In the same way that Wikipedia is not a game guide, we're also not a trivia guide for films, either.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  17:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The main focus of the series is the traps and their intricacies. To delete this article would mean a need to include information on each trap for each movie in their respective movie section, making the articles long and inwieldy. 71.162.238.108 (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you have to include them in their movie sections? "Shotgun trap" does not need a complete backstory and description of how it works; I could file patents with the level of detail present in some of these trap descriptions (that's not a good thing). Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  06:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep The article is, as mentioned, unwieldy, and needs to be changed quite heavily. However, the concept of the article in itself should remain - perhaps an article on the major traps from each film, and short summaries of the actual design and implementation of these?  Comments from Production Designer(s) (David Hackl) or directors (James Wan or Darren Lynn Bousman) from each respective film's behind-the-scenes trap creation featurette may add more light to this.  In the end, it needs to be more a design article rather than a storyline article, and this seems to be what the fans are forgetting.  Shape it up, or get rid of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobbieMayona (talk • contribs)
 * Weak keep - The article did serve a purpose originally, and I feel that it can be brought back to that. Eliminate the useless plot and 'cruft' floating about, and I think it will satisfy Wikipedia's criteria. ≈  The Haunted Angel  15:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What purpose did it serve? I don't think every trap needs an explanation aside from a sentence or so, and that could easily fit in the articles. Again, the plot doesn't have to be so comprehensive as to cause the reader to experience images of what's being described... Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  16:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A lot of the traps, especially in the later films, become more complex in nature and scope. Maybe not paragraphs long in terms of content, but more than one sentence.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if those in favour of Keeping the article could make their statements without being grilled. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Everyone has the right to question the judgment of others. That's the beauty of a democratic process (I'm betting $50 that someone will throw a policy back in my face). Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  23:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no beauty in badgering those who disagree with you. I am switching my !vote to Strong Keep based on this constant needling. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - The article covers information that would be deemed off-topic on a film article itself.:  ViperBlade   Talk!! 17:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - This article has been nominated twice for deletion, why?. Why is this page standing up against fucking wikipedia rules, it's like they are playing this little game to give people like me the freak. Which initially they have been given the will they wanted. I strongly recommend that this article must stay because of the content of it is valuable to the Saw Faschise, cut this article will decrease the level that it is now on top of it to fall drastically. This article must stay at all cost since this is a valuavble piece to a great movie franschise. Amen !!!--MKV2 (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment What does this discussion have to do with your crudely expressed opinion of the quality of the series? The matter at hand is whether the traps specifically have sufficient significance that they need their own article. I think not. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Excellent summary of physical plot devices, that should be in any article on a book or movie that relies on physical objects as plot devices, as per Harry Potter and LOTR. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This provides an excellent summary for those people who are interested or want to know more about what happens in this series. This is one of the few places that they can find all of this information. User:Jigsaw23 20:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the first contribution by Jigsaw23. Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  04:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —Ecoleetage (talk) 03:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as mere plot detail. Plot detail is supposed to complement a topic per WP:PLOT, not serve as the topic. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 03:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * An incredible amount of time and effort went into collecting this wonderful collection of movie trivia. Lets get it Merged to Saw (film series) where it has context and notability.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As it seems Saw fans are going to resist any delete, then i'm fine with this being cut down and mergeed to into the film article. Wikipedia reflecting a poor film with a poor article is not ideal, but is better than 2 poor articles :-/. Of course, without sources, even the merge is unfair on the parent article, and would prevent it ever reaching GA or Fa status, so better to delete. I never understand fans who want to showcase their interests by creating crappy articles, instead of improving the core articles on the subject.... Are all the trap titles also OR?Yobmod (talk) 08:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The uselessness and trivialness of this article is scarier than any of the films. Erik the Red  2    03:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as plot detail and pure fancruft. McWomble (talk) 13:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as cruft or cut back severely. Tim Bennett (talk) 13:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I was under the impression that using "cruft" for deletion arguments wasn't recommended.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - 'Cruft' isn't an argument in and of itself, but in this case, and in some others at least, it's a good shorthand for 'An indiscriminate collection of primarily in-world information without proper evidence of external notability, collated in a non-encyclopedic way, presenting material better suited to an episode guide, etc'. I think it's unfair to argue against your opponents simply on the basis that they're using an informal term which you feel should be discouraged. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That was hardly my sole argument on this discussion if you were to look above. I'm just seeing a lot of "Delete. Cruft", with little to nothing else, which is listed in the "arguments to avoid" section. Also there is saying that the films are poor and not deserving of an article, which is just as bad as saying the films are great and thus deserving of one because of that.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Response - I didn't say that that was your only argument. My objection to this article is not aesthetic at all; my objection remains that the entire thing is a big block of poorly-sourced in-world material - see WP:PLOT and the paragraph about fictional element lists in WP:FICT - and that it thus gives undue weight to specific aspects of this series without justifying it. Most of the forty-odd cited sources are simply images from the films. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring to you when I said that about the "films being poor" thing but someone above you. (I'm sorry if I came off like that). --CyberGhostface (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. Cruft. X MarX the Spot (talk) 02:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Unencyclopedic cruft and excessive plot detail. Good films, though. Cosmomancer (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Don't see why it shouldn't be kept. Deon555 (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Comment. No one's said it doesn't need work or cleanup.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * right. On top of those needs, it needs reliable sources that cover the subject.  without those it should be deleted. Protonk (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If the article is kept, other users and I are going to work on it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you going to publish reliable sources that cover the topic? Protonk (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to publish anything, obviously. I was going to see if I could find any. I know for starters that the horror movie documentary on Starz last year (which wasn't made by anyone working on the films) discussed the usage of the traps in comparision to other films.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep the article as useful, encyclopedic, and notable unoriginal research easily verified in reliable sources that belongs on Wikipedia. If anything delete this discussion as afdcruft.--63.3.1.130 (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep needs major cleanup. Change from list to article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:02, 11 October 2008 (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.