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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 06:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saw III was nominated for deletion on 2005-11-05. The result of the discussion was "delete". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saw III.

Film does not exist yet, crystal ball article StoatBringer 00:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It has a release date and an imdb article -- Astrokey44|talk 00:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It does exist, it just hasn't been released yet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.178.205 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-23 00:54:50 UTC
• Keep. Just wait for the release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.214.85 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-23 01:01:57 UTC
  • Note: this is the only edit by this anon. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 07:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Stoatbringer. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Up coming film with a IMDB article. Upcoming films are often discussed here.--Bkwillwm 04:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Per IMDB: "this project is categorized as being in production", it is not a completed film. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 07:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If we're going to have Snakes on a Plane, we're going to have Saw III. --King of All the Franks 07:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a big difference. Snakes on a Plane has finished shooting principal photography and is now in post-production. Saw 3 or -III doesn't even have a director yet. As for other posters' assertion that it has an IMDB article and is thus verifiable, let me quote from the article itself: "a recently debunked rumor (started from IMDb) was made that Eli Roth (director of Hostel) would be directing Saw III." Is any better illustration needed of why we don't start these articles on films until they are much further on their way to release? -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition: there's an "official site" for Saw 3 which only states "This site is under construction" and leads to the website of Lions Gate Films. Yet if you check the HTML source of the "official site" and compare it to that of the Lions Gate Films site (which does not list Saw 3 at all) there's no similarity in the style. I'm not saying that this is a hoax -- but what I'm saying is that if I was a hoaxer trying to make people believe in a not-even-planned movie, I think I could produce all the 'evidence' that people are pointing to as proof that it exists and is verifiable. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Verifiable. (ESkog)^(Talk) 07:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, if no director has been attached, the release date isn't verifiable or certain even to the studio. Most of the info included is about who isn't in it and what it isn't named (that's not information). And only Tobin Bell is confirmed according to IMDB. If there's anything Harry Potter films have thought me is that unless there's an official studio press release, you can take cast rumors about anyone else without evidence with three spoonfuls of salt. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per precedent. Star Wars Episode 3 among others were up on here well before the film even went into production. The film has an IMDB entry which is verifible. More information will doubtless be available in due course which can be added to the article as time goes by. The article (as I see it) sticks to known facts about the planning of the film and tries to avoid crystal ball references. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 10:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mind you, SW Ep3 was almost a given once Ep1 went into production, and the concept had been bandied about the fan community since it was revealed that A New Hope was Episode 4. On the matter of this, I will concede that there appear to be more 'definite yes' entries than the previous round, which was (from my viewpoint) one of the main reasons for deletion, although I will say here that I have made absolutely no effort in researching the truth or fiction of these facts. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 10:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jamyskis - plenty of potential here. Essexmutant 12:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Jamyskis. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Film is in preproduction and is not a notable exception like Star Wars movies or the second Narnia would be. Endomion 16:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Much as I hate the Saw movies, they are big (and popular), and it seems kind of unreasonable to kill the article on Saw 3 (which is in production). --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 16:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Astrokey44 Cynical 20:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Endomion Search4Lancer 23:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete G4 repost. Stifle 12:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not subject to the exception for massively notable films like Star Wars, not enough actual encyclopedic content. ++Lar 15:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The film has an IMDB article. Nuff said. The Filmaker 23:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Why should we delete something that we will eventually have to do anyway ? The movie is going to be released. Might aswell get an early start I say. - User:Micheal L.
  • Because it's not true that "we will eventually have to do [it] anyway"; Hollywood announces plenty of films ahead of time that either never come out or come out in wildly different form from what was announced. We don't know that it's "going to be released", just because that's the current plan. What's the good of having an article on Saw III if we don't have reliable information on Saw III? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.