Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saw VI (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   redirect to Saw V and protect the re-direct. While I don't think anyone involved in this discussion would deliberately override the re-direct, others are in a rush to re-create this. No objection to unsalting once filming has begun. TravellingCari 23:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Saw VI
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources can be found to demonstrate that filming has already begun (as per NFF), but given that the last AfD had to both delete and protect due to failure of editors to comply, I'd recommend reinstituting those measures, especially in light of extra interest due to the release of Saw V. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NFF, but preferably speedy delete per WP:CSD G4 (if possible). Why was protection lifted from this page? PC78 (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I had protection lifted from it so we could redirect to Saw V. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A G4 deletion is not possible, as this has some sourcing and NFF wasn't discussed last time.--chaser - t 05:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * G4 is indeed possible unless this version of the article differs significantly from the last one; sources and arguments made in the last AfD are neither here nor there. If this is indeed a valid redirect, fine, then the obvious solution is to redirect and protect. PC78 (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Saw V. Once protection was lifted for this article, it redirected. People kept changing the redirect to an article, so I attempted to find sources to back it up. I did the best I could, but I guess it's just too early. Still, there's no reason to resalt this article. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm a bit on the fence about re-salting myself, but perhaps semi-protecting the redirect for the next week or two may be in order? It's not inconceivable that there would be multiple attempts at article re-creation by over-zealous fans. Suffice it to say, if this is deleted or redirected and is quickly recreated, I'm going to heavily argue for a salting if this goes to a 3rd AfD. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think that a delete and salting just seems excessive. It's clear that the movie is going to happen - there's sections on Saw (film series) and Saw V. I'd support a redirect and protect, however. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep : It is official that there will be a Saw VI, considering that they are going to be doing a reality tv show in which the winning contestant gets a role in Saw VI. Yeldarb68 (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete (G4) and salt again — the sources in the article are not the least reliable (the one is a deadlink). In other words, this is crystalballery at its finest. I think this teaches us not to trust repeatedly deleted articles as a redirect, as they will very easily be reverted and/or recreated. MuZemike  ( talk ) 03:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Have you considered the redirect option? Is that not a viable solution here? &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep : This article passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It is obvious and confirmed that there will be a Saw 6 and already has a confirmed director. Furthermore, it will keep being created by fans of the franchise if it is deleted. I see no reason to delete as it will continually expand, because Saw 5 has just come out. Fans will turn to Saw 6 and Lionsgate will release information, which will be posted here. If sources are needed for this to be kept, they can easily be obtained. Petee326 (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fans won't be able to keep re-creating it if it's turned into a protected redirect.--chaser - t 05:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not sure whether we should be following the letter of WP:NFF in this case. Is holding a reality TV show for someone to be in the next film a significant investment? As significant as rolling film? Besides that, they're churning these films out at quite a clip. I don't really see it as likely that this film won't get made.--chaser - t 05:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Saw V or Saw (film series) since principal photography has not yet begun: The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film can be included in articles about its subject material. Protecting the redirect temporarily sounds like a good idea, as discussed above.  Cliff smith  talk  05:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A redirect is clearly in order here. Why can't we simply salt/protect the redirect until shooting begins? - Mgm|(talk) 09:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: To be honest, I don't really care what kind of back and forth procedures this website goes through. Redirecting and bothering to even discuss this is a waste of your time. Saw VI is a definite. It doesn't make a difference if there is a huge effort by users push for the article to be removed, because it will be put right back up inevitably very soon. Not because of fan determination, but because of the sheer and undeniable fact that Saw VI will be made. 1) The reality series which is casting for the film (ie, if the film isn't made, what is the winning contestant going to be left with? A lie and false promises?) 2) Tobin Bell and Costas Mandylor are officially signed on. As are the writers and director of Saw V. 3) Saw VI was even intended to be filmed back to back with V, that's how definite VI is.
 * But like I said, delete the article all you want. But Saw VI will happen, and the article will be back up in no time with even further confirmation, and the deletion of this article as it is now, would be nothing more than a waste of your own efforts and time. NOTE: I'm not being a passionate fan, I'm being pragamatic. All I see in reality is users who dislike SAW and are masking that motive with false attempts at flimsy attempts at bureaucratic procedures to the impractical extreme. NOTE: I'm not writing as a huge fan of SAW. Personally, I hope SAW VI isn't made. BUT that's how much I'm putting personal bias aside in realizing the reality of the situation. SAW VI is inevitable with actors signed, casting for a new character well underway, and the writer and director already signed up. Delete it if that is the decision, but gee, what a waste of your time and effort. It'll be right back up in no time. Saw VI isn't in question if they are officially casting for it. Yeldarb68 (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep based upon the connection to a television series being aired on a national network; production announcement of Saw VI can be verified via that source (filming does not necessarily have to have begun). The second source is a blog and blogs aren't allowed, so this should be replaced with a Wikipedia-recognized media source ASAP. But right now the VH1 connection is enough to keep this alive and to avoid CRYSTAL. However, I have no predjudice against renomination (or someone going WP:BOLD and merging) should production of Saw VI (or the Scream Queens TV series) be cancelled. 23skidoo (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete The article fails WP:NFF directly. Now, NFF, being a guideline and not a policy, is not ironclad.  I can see notability conferred by a prominent TV show being sufficient to allow for an article on an unproduced film.  Why delete, then?  Because I don't see evidence that Scream Queens is itself notable, or that the Saw VI connection will be significant.  gnfnrf (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —PC78 (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Saw (film series); I agree with nominator's argument, but I think that a redirect, possibly salted, would be better. — Erik (talk • contrib) 16:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or Redirect to Saw (film series); enough of evidence and info has been planted to already know that this is on it's way, pretty much like the Saw Video Game. If you don't decide to keep it, redirect it at least so it would spare the amount of time recreating this article for a later purpose. Carbo45 (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Only Keep. Because film present on IMDb. ID 1233227.--Agent001 (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: this is above user's first edit. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not important, I am user Agent001 from russian Wiki. I a long ago watch after the articles Saw (film series).--Agent001 (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * why delete ?? This page will exist anyway in one month, even if it's deleted now. it would be foolish. Nico92400 (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: So... is this a vote to keep? &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * KEEP Nico92400 (talk) 10:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have tried to fix the page up a bit. I think, now with the several refs found and the clean-up I, and several others, have done, this page may finally deserve to be kept.  I do, however, feel that until many other things become available, it should be watched heavily as it may be vandalized.  Just my observation.  But overall, I feel it's a weak keep, if not redirect to the Saw V and/or Saw (film series).  --HELLØ    ŦHERE 00:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: To the editors who are voting "keep", the notability guidelines for future films stipulates to creating an article when filming has begun. The mood is overly optimistic -- because people are writing a film does not at all mean that there will be a film.  Even the most desired projects do not make it to production, a notable example being Spider-Man 4 (which redirects to Spider-Man (film series)).  It is easy enough to develop a "Future" section on the film series article and export it to a stand-alone article once filming begins.  It cannot be absolutely guaranteed without a doubt that this film will take place, and redirecting is a viable option to compensate for that. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 01:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply. I believe the reason most believe it should be kept by the "filming" guidelines, is because several times it's been reported that Saw V and VI would be filming back to back.  I don't necessarily know if that's true, but it has been stated.  --HELLØ    ŦHERE 01:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and SALT. JBsupreme (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Per WP:JUSTAVOTE, care to explain why? &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I would, thanks for asking. The sources presented are unrelated to the subject or do not meet our standards for reliability.  JBsupreme (talk) 02:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. The film is confirmed, the director is set, the release date is available, and some of the cast is signed on. Deleting the article when production will start in a couple of months seems unneccessary, and salting it will just cause more problems.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I think this might be the best solution, redirecting it until more info is available, given the all the morons adding Cary Elwes to the cast list and what not.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak redirect. This is a case where the it may make sense to ignore the letter of the guideline and keep the article even though production hasn't started but I remain reluctant to give it the go just yet.  Plenty of films make it to this stage (written script, signed director and main cast) and then fall through.  Thus WP:NFF insistence on a strict application of WP:CRYSTAL.  In this case, we're right on the edge, and I'd rather wait for the beginning of filming (or at least better sources)before going with a full blown article rather than a redirect to Saw (film series.  There's certainly material to cover, but I think that it is better in the main series article for the next few weeks/months.  Eluchil404 (talk) 06:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Despite my rather dim view of film producers, however, I do not think so little of their business acumen as to believe that any would actually put themselves into a position to be legally forced to spend millions of dollars on a production because of a TV contest. Productions are cancelled all the time, for a variety of reasons too numerous to list, and contracts are regularly broken; indeed, they are usually structured in ways to compensate if a film does not happen. (See pay or play contract.) Now, please understand that no one is declaring that this film isn't going to happen, nor are we trying to suppress the information. But our guideline regarding this is that until the film is rolling, anything can happen. And it often does - dozens of films stall, cancel, or go back to development - many of them well into pre-production, some of them days or weeks away from starting, and well into set-building. Because of this, we develop the information on either the film series page or the source material's article - whichever best applies. When it starts filming, the article is created, because generally that's the point where the amount of money invested makes it severely disadvantageous for a production to be cancelled for reasons outside of catastrophe. That's what film insurance and bonding exists for - to complete the film by any means. Sorry if that irks some of you, but this wasn't something concocted for laughs - we used to have dozens of articles for unshot films, many of which never were shot, despite "every assurance" from editors who were convinced that they eventually would. The guideline exists because we aren't in a position to make those judgment calls, and despite the presence of stars, studios, or money, plenty of those films don't wind up shooting. So please don't view this as someone not believing the film is going to be made: it has nothing to do with you or us, and everything to do with the mercurial nature of film production. (Entourage is an only-slightly-exagerrated look at this side of things.) Perhaps the long and tortuous history of Superman V is worth a glance? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect, and here's why: No-one is disputing that Saw VI is highly likely to happen. But the point is that it's not 100% likely. It might seem like a petty distinction to make, but without that distinction provided by the notability guideline for future films, we'd have stubby articles on all kinds of films that seemed to many reasonable people highly notable and likely at the time, but which never went ahead for whatever reason. I'm thinking of Spielberg's Lincoln, which has been happening "next year" for the last four years, White Jazz, Oliver Stone's Pinkville (which got as far as having its sets built), Justice League (fully cast and ready to film, the writers' strike put an end to that one), Silver Surfer (written, but pulled at the last minute due to the slightly disappointing box office of F42). All of these were announced, given tentative release schedules, etc. and all were abandoned or postponed. Just look at how many productions were postponed, even shelved indefinitely, because of the 2007-2008 Writers Guild of America strike. Even Jurassic Park IV, part of one of the most lucrative film franchises of recent years, and which most people would consider a no-brainer for a speedy greenlight, was supposed to be released in 2005 (and consider this: if Wikipedia had been around in the 1990s, without the guideline, we'd have had seven or eight different articles on Superman V by now). The guideline isn't there to piss anyone off, I support it even though I've had articles of my own fall under its sword. That's because it's there for good, practical reasons. Budget, scripting and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. We've seen so many projects fall by the wayside at the last minute, especially in the current climate, that employing the guideline as strictly as we can is the only way of ensuring that Wikipedia doesn't get clogged with stub articles about films which were never made and thus would ultimately fail the general notability guideline. There's a very good reason we have an article on development hell: because films get stuck in it all the time. In accordance with the guideline, the article can be recreated without prejudice if and when principal photography is finally confirmed to have begun. For now, any verifiable information should sit nicely at Saw (film series) or Saw V. I would urge fans of the series not to consider whether the film "deserves" an article, but instead to consider what's best for the readers of these articles. With what little information is available about Saw VI at present (naturally, because filming hasn't started), surely the best place for information on it is in the context of the other films in the series. Steve  T • C 09:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The logic of "this film may never happen" would be fine were it not for the fact that the last four sequels have come out 365 days after the last like clockwork for the last four years. This is no Pinkville, this is no White Jazz, this is no Superman V, this is no Jurassic Park IV. There are no arty considerations for this film, there are no casting dilemmas (as Mandaylor and Bell have contracts for VI), there are no production delays (V was made during the longest writing strike in memory), this film is impervious to the fires of development hell, this film will begin in a few months and will be out within twelve months. Keep. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's exceedingly likely that Saw VI will film on schedule. But these are arguments I've heard before about films that I was sure would happen too, yet ultimately did not, or were postponed. Bell is signed, but what if he suddenly holds out for more money, or the production has to be postponed for a couple of months because he's busy filming something else, and then something else comes along to delay things after that (accident, illness, getting the actors back together at the right time)? What if Saw V suddenly drops 90% in its second week of release and the studio decides "that's enough"? Again, I agree that all being well the film will go ahead. But if we're being consistent then this has to go until principal photography begins. Otherwise we're opening the floodgates to articles created after the barest hint of an announcement in Variety. Steve  T • C 16:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * None of those theoretical scenarios are enough to delete, if Bell gets ill they'll re-write, his contract dates from before Saw IV so he would be unlikely to renegotiate it now (especially as he is dead in the franchise and they could manage without him), if Saw V drops 90% they will have still made all their money back from the opening weekend. NFF applies to most films, as a release rate of five films in 1,461 days it is clear that this is not like Superman or Spiderman or any other franchise, it is even more prolific than Elm Street, Halloween or Friday 13th. As for opening the floodgates I would say the bar for that is suitably high, Saw is the exception not the rule, and I would say WP:IAR applies in this case. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that's your original research. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm a bit biased since I'm a Saw junkie.  I would have said delete to this one, but the notability of Scream Queens kinda makes Saw 6 more notable that the other movies were at this point in their development.  It's certainly more notable than the wildly speculative Saw 7.  --User101010 (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak redirect to Saw V or Saw (film series). I have no doubt whatsoever that Saw VI will be released in October 2009 and the winner of Scream Queens will appear in it. I think it's highly likely that the Saw franchise will eventually reach at least 8 films, considering the budget of these films, their grosses, and their review-proof nature. But given the recent vandalism to the article, a year is a long time to fight pointless cast speculation and vandalism, so I think a redirect would be best until it actually begins filming. --Pixelface (talk) 07:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Do not delete.. Saw VI has been confirmed for at least a year, if not more, and this page will come back here ANYWAY in one or two months' time, at the very latest. Makes absolutely no sense to delete it now. Thank you. - My.life.is.muzik... (talk) 11:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Per the above comment, KEEP. -- Victor talk 18:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Saw V and Protect Until verifiable sources are sufficient enough to sustain the article. Bsay  USD   [Talk] π [contribs]  19:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Protected redirect and preserve article history for when filming starts and we can unprotect the article. There are good arguments for why this film will be made, but the laundry list presented by Steve and Savanarola of films that were sure fire but never got made is more persuasive. Deleting this doesn't make any sense either, as a protected redirect will prevent article re-creations until the film is made or the project is dropped.--chaser - t 04:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It has a cast already signed and a script written. It will just be recreated in a few months anyway just protect until then to avoid vandalism. JakeDHS07  04:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect until there is more information about the film and it's closer to coming out. But the information can also be moved to the Saw series page until there is enough to have it's own page.LoveLaced (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as there is even a show called Scream Queens for which the winner wins a spot in this film.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As has already been pointed out, that doesn't really mean anything. Read Giro's long post above as to exactly why. Steve  T • C 18:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect to Saw V or Saw (film series). The article doesn't meet notability criteria yet for future films, because principle photography has not started yet. Raven1977 (talk) 19:23, 1 November 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.