Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Hills Have Eyes 2 characters

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. While valid points are raised by some of the keep arguments, the lack of verification for a single word of this article is a problem that is difficult to ignore. An article detailing major characters from this series may be something we should have, but a comprehensive list of every single character in this movie with no sourcing whatsoever something we probably should not have. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Hills Have Eyes 2 characters

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason I nominate List of Mutants in The Hills Have Eyes for deletion. It suffers from chronic fancruft; it also lacks or has minimal references to reliable third party sources and fails to adequately show the notability of the subject. Many films of similar notability do not have character sheets, such as Anaconda. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not a classic movie or one with an enormous fanbase that has spawned the publication of books about its characters (e.g. Casablanca and The Matrix). No notable third parties is discussing the characters of this movie in a non-trivial way to the point that a list of the characters would pass our notability guidelines for lists. --NellieBly (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia has long accepted list articles for characters of any notable series. It spawned quite a number of movies, and apparently has a cult following. Dream Focus 13:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that the nomination is for a character sheet about the sequel to the remake and not the entire series. A list of major and recurring characters for James Bond is fine, but in-depth detail about every minor character in Never Say Never Again would be unnecessary. The same principle applies here. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and use to merge individual character pages into it, keeping reasonable size descriptions. Lists likethis are the way to go for material of this sort. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per DGG.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I agree with Crisco and NellieBly. This article is unsourced trivia, and goes into way too much detail on minor aspects of one movie in a series of movies. That's pretty clearly undue weight. All articles, including lists, are required to be verifiable and to establish the notability of the topic they describe. Crufty pop-culture articles like this one fail both of those requirements; they just draw upon editors' personal impressions of the work of fiction itself without any solid backing. Reyk _YO! 21:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not believe that the notability of the movie The Hills Have Eyes 2 warrants such a detailed list of fictional characters. The list itself lacks sources and, without third-party sources, there is no presumption of notability. Even the article about the movie does not have many third-party sources to presume that a list of characters is truly needed. The characters' role is perfectly covered with the plot, so there is no need to create a detailed list of characters to understand the film. The list is basically a detailed plot-only description of a fictional work with no references, which makes the article original research by synthesis at best. I do not think that the article meets the criteria of appropriate topics for lists since, with no sources to presume otherwise, it is trivial, non-encyclopedic, and it is not related to human knowledge. I believe that the article is an unnecessary content fork that meets the criteria of reasons for deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 03:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fancruft, non-notable, unsourced, trivia etc. etc. --Reference Desker (talk) 11:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: despite statements otherwise, Wikipedia has deleted character lists like this when there are no third party sources to WP:VERIFYNOTABILITY. There's also the issue that this article is just fictional stories about each character when Wikipedia is WP:NOTJUSTPLOT. There is no consensus to treat fiction in any specialized way when it comes to sourcing. If someone wanted to propose otherwise, I would be willing to meet halfway. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2011 (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.