Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saw III


 * 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 of the debate was Delete. Physchim62 (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Saw III
WP:NOT a crystal ball. This movie is not scheduled for release until 2007, and absolutely nothing is actually known about it. NatusRoma 06:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that this article should be deleted first and foremost. I have seen alot of people with questions unanswered about hopes of a third film. People who, unlike me, are too lazy to go out and search for the information themselves. I see this stub as a means of answering peoples' thoughts about a third film. This stub can possibly minimize one less "OMG SAW?!?!" and/or "Saw 3: S3W" type forum posts. It will also help debunk false information, such as the rumor of Saw 3 being titled "S3W".

A sidenote: all information posted about Saw 3 has some sort of proof/evidence linked to it. ie. Gregg Hoffman's statement of Saw 3 not being titled "S3W", Shawnee Smith's interview of not being actually confirmed for Saw 3, etc. (Unsigned, page-blanking comment by User:71.116.97.44 now inserted under nomination NatusRoma 06:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC))


 * Delete unless a decent amount of concrete and verifiable evidence concerning the production of this movie is provided before the end of AfD. If deleted, recreate at a later date when such information becomes available. Saberwyn 07:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. While this gets a reasonable amount of hits, there is no verifiable information about this film as yet. Capitalistroadster 07:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think at least the fact that the movie is not called S3W deserves a mention somewhere. If anything, perhaps Redirect this to Saw II, and leave a mention that Saw 3 isn't called S3W in there? Mo0 [ talk ] 07:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.  . Capitalistroadster 08:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Speculation; no entry on IMDb at the moment. *drew 09:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Saw 2 and leave the verifiable bit of information in a section there until the production company or director start releasing information. - Mgm|(talk) 19:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Privat  e   Butcher  23:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too much speculation in this article, nothing is confirmed yet. - Gadgetfusion 10:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This comment was signed by User:68.170.210.45 . Are you User:Gadgetfusion, or an imposter? NatusRoma 18:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This comment was signed by User:68.170.210.45 . Are you User:Gadgetfusion, or an imposter? NatusRoma 18:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge per User:MacGyverMagic. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Saw II, primarily to help prevent premature recreation. Xoloz 06:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Saw II per WP:NOT.  Ingoolemo   talk  08:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Why?  For one, the existence was confirmed by the producer himself, on a message board.  While there's no confirmed director/cast yet, it's somewhat pointless to delete an article that we all know will be warranted within months, if not weeks.  It's confirmed, it's verified, so we should clean up the article to a better standard and expand as necessary. --badlydrawnjeff 15:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. The problem with this article is that at the moment, it is nothing more than "Saw III is not..." and "Saw III may be...". That is the only kind of information we have regarding the movie at this point in time. Now if the article had a few "Saw III is..." statements in it, I would not hesitate to keep it, but until we get the 'positive' information we need, we should either delete this and recreate when that information becomes available, or tuck it out of the way somewhere until, again, that information is available. Saberwyn 07:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * So we can't stub it and allow it to grow as we do with hundreds of other articles? The number one problem that we're seeing is verifibility, and it's verified.  It's real.  --badlydrawnjeff 12:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, more verifiable than Farenheit 9/11 1/2.  Grue   15:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and put all speculative movie articles up for deletion. —Cleared as filed. 12:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This is just fine as is. Saw 3 is going to be a movie, and there is speculation on wiki about minor events that are supposed to happen over 100 years from now. JONJONAUG 07:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Such as? Most "future" events on Wikipedia are fictional in nature. NatusRoma 02:47, 11 November 2005 (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.