Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pig mask

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 (default keep). For more details see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Pig mask. JERRY talk contribs 02:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pig mask

Pig mask (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete - fails WP:NOT#PLOT as a mere rehash of the appearances of the prop in the film series. The mask may be important within the series but there appear not to be reliable sources that establish any real-world notability. Otto4711 (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep This "keep" probably won't mean anything considering how the mods deleted Hoffman's article, but in addition to being significant in all four films, the pig mask has also been sold as halloween mask, a number of action figures and models, and has been the subject of a number of promotional posters. The article does need work, but that doesn't mean we should all be delete-happy and get rid of it. (BTW, are you on some quest to rid Wikipedia of every Saw-related article or something??) --CyberGhostface (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Just the ones that don't meet WIkipedia policies and guidelines. Otto4711 (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
keep same as above though the vote will mean nothing because unless you have a shed-load of guidlines and policies to quote your vote doesn't count. An iconic part of the Saw series that needs a little work. Agent452 (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No evidence of real-world notability; I appreciate that precedent isn't decisive at AfD, but Jason Voorhees' mask is a far more iconic image, and it only warrants a passing mention in the hockey mask article. Tevildo (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Balance per notability concerns above. --Revanche (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Commentthere's now a section on impact ect...not that it matters really it'll still go Agent452 (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Y'know, when Hoffman's article was deleted, most of the people wanted it to be kept, but this was ignored because according to the deleting admin it was just "I like it". I wonder if most of the delete comments are going to be variations of "Per nom" if thats going to be taken into consideration.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You mean the part of that essay that explicitly states that "per nom" may be sufficient? One can only hope. Otto4711 (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You're taking one part of the essay and ignoring the rest. It says in "instances where the nomination includes a well-formulated argument, is extensive in its reasoning and clearly addresses the major issues", which certainly doesn't apply in this case.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not ignoring anything. You posted your little 'look at the per nom comments' thing and I simply pointed out that it doesn't mean what you think it means. As for whether the nomination, which cites multiple policies and guidelines, constitutes a well-formulated argument etc., well, that's what we're here to decide. Otto4711 (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The Hoffman article also led to 3 accounts being permanently band for sockpuppetry. Ridernyc (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I think even without the sockpuppets the keep-delete ratio was still higher.--CyberGhostface (talk) 11:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment To the closing admin: WP:PLOT states that articles should "[offer] detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot." The article has since been accomadated with a section on the pig mask's development outside of the films, its impact on the series and on popular culture as well.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • And the independent reliable sourcing for this new material is...where exactly? I'm not seeing that hypebeast.com and action-figure.com really meet that standard. Otto4711 (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Action-figure.com is a fairly reliable, neutral source for the field. I can't speak for Hypebeast (although I'm sure that would be) but if it isn't I can find another source to vouch for it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The action-figure.com link is a press release. so it dose nothing to establish notability. The rest of sources are not reliable sources. One of them is a ebay link. You need thrid party reliable sources that back up the statements made in the article. Ridernyc (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
One of the links was a review of the pig figure.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge abbreviation of content into Jigsaw Killer. And please add whatever source the out-of-universe section on development comes from. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment If push comes to shove I wouldn't mind merging with the Jigsaw article, although the plot summary would have to be shortened considerably.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge I think this and the Billy the Puppet article could be integrated into the Jigsaw article, as they're both methods he uses to psychologically torment his victims... alone they're not really notable enough to have their own articles. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 04:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 02:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • keep The operative adjective is "iconic": the mask has for better or worse achieved a cultural presence that is independent of the movie. Somebody who is disconcerted by one of these masks on Halloween will want to know where they come from--and that's what an encyclopedia is for.Wageless (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge the info into one of the film artciles. no reason for this to have it's own article. Also nothing notable about a horror movie featuring pig masks, it's actually pretty common. Ridernyc (talk) 10:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, if it's common for horror movies to have pig masks--news to me--then all the more reason for pig masks to have their own article.14:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wageless (talk • contribs)
lets see just off the top of my head there is Motel Hell, and the original The Wicker Man and no there is no reason for a pig mask article unless you can find sources that have written about the use of pig masks in a critical way. Ridernyc (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Whilst I've made my vote already, the only issue I have with the suggestion of merging the content into Jigsaws article is that the pig mask/Billy were used by both Amanda and Jigsaw (and quite possibly Hoffman) and that merging the content will essentially make a completely "in-universe" section of the article Agent452 (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. The article is put together well, verifiable, contains references and concerns a recognizable aspect of a notable film series. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • And as usual you have completely failed to address even a single aspect of any issue raised by the nomination. Otto4711 (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
would it is possible to re-factor this as "The above comment does not address even ...." ? DGG (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • keep sources are clearly there. The two action figure reviews are enough IMO. The thing's notable it seems. Hobit (talk) 02:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • So is this AFD ever going to close or is it just going to be left open until enough Saw fans wander by to manufacture consensus? We're on day 13 of this five-day AFD. Otto4711 (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This five-day AFD has now been open for 14 days. Otto4711 (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a Saw fan. The article is about a notable theme in a notable series of movies. It pulls together information in a helpful way. What harm comes from keeping?--Wageless (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, asking What harm, combined with an assertion of notability, is a perfectly decent way of making a case for inclusion. You cite the "Arguments to Avoid" essay as if it's some sort of tantric text; recall that it's just an essay--it isn't a set of officially sanctioned protocols, and in fact there are thoughtful editors who would take exception to it. The reason we should ask What harm in a case like this is that the overzealous deletions of people's work, as here, do in fact cumulatively harm the future usefulness of the encyclopedia.--Wageless (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • not going to get into a huge debate about it here but non-notable fancruft like this is dragging the entire project down. Ridernyc (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • A simple assertion of notability that is not backed up with reliable sources is not a component of a decent argument. No-it-isn't-yes-it-is exchanges are fairly worthless. And, not to get all "tantric" again but WP:USEFUL isn't particularly compelling either. All sorts of potentially useful things get deleted every day because they fail WP policies and guidelines. I would argue that keeping articles that violate WP policies and guidelines cumulatively harm the project by encouraging people to devote time and energy to maintaining such articles, setting the example to encourage the creation of more such articles and overall dilute the mission of the project. Otto4711 (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • My dear Otto, nobody's "violating" anything. Do you really think that if you succeed in deleting Pig Mask, the Saw people are going to devote themselves to touching up, say, an article on Robert Benchley or FPA? The mask is a big deal--it looms in peoples' imagination--and don't cite WP:LOOM, please. Your deletions are dilutions.--Wageless (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • My dear Wageless, while I will not cite WP:LOOM, I will note that "looms in the imagination" does not appear to be a criterion for establishing notability. I will also cite WP:CIVIL. I have no idea what the "Saw People" will do with themselves should this article be deleted. Perhaps they'll devote themselves to looking at the other Saw articles with an eye to bringing them in line with WP policy instead of writing long rambling plot summaries and other unencyclopedic stuff. Maybe they'll find themselves a new hobby to obsess about. Maybe they'll be fine and dandy, like a hard candy Christmas. Doesn't really matter. Otto4711 (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Day 15 of this 5-day AFD dawns... Otto4711 (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete page and merge any notable info into one of the film articles. Honestly, the choice of disguise that some of the characters in the film series sometimes used is not worth of its own breakout article. The "references" cited are nothing but commercial advertisements for SAW film memorabilia, that isn't evidence of notability. What little useful information within would more logically appear on either Jigsaw Killer or the episode of film it is being referenced. Why no breakout articles for Jason's hockey mask (as in, the SPECIFIC ones used, not Goalie masks in general) or the masks from the "Scream" franchise? They are at least as "iconic"...---Jackel (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. One of those 'commercial advertisements' was in fact a review. Although at this point I'll agree that if any of the Saw articles hsould be merged, it should be this one.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No evidence of notability, just a plot summary. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:04, 31 January 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.