Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mutants in The Hills Have Eyes


 * 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   keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

List of Mutants in The Hills Have Eyes

 * – ( View AfD View log )

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) 23:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep List articles for characters in any notable series are always fine. Someone familiar with the series can perhaps cut out anything seen as unfitting.  No need to delete an article, when normal editing procedures can eliminate any problem areas.   D r e a m Focus  12:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What about the lack of references? Verifiability may be validly used if the information if there are no reliable third party sources. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It says "primary sources are appropriate in some cases". This is one of those obvious cases.  Other articles like this also mention characters found in a series, without you needing some newspaper or whatnot naming all of them for you.   D r e a m Focus  15:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * However, it is also stated that we should not rely entirely upon primary sources. Without third-party sources, notability cannot be objectively shown. If primary source information were enough for notability, everything from Kalimantaan to Red Storm Rising to Salah Asuhan would be open to a character sheet. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Please note that the article deals with the the remake, its sequel and a graphic novel. The original series is not dealt with. Hence the Anaconda comparison. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, a fictional character list from a series needs no third party sources if the series itself is notable, which is it. Mathewignash (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The series' notability and the characters' notability are two different things. Anaconda, for example, is definitely a notable series of its own right. Numerous reliable third party sources discussing it (even if most of those are reviews and newspaper articles). However, notability cannot be shown for its characters because nothing has been published about the characters. No studies, no notices that the characters have entered pop-culture, no reviews focusiing on them. The same applies to this character sheet. The movies themselves are clearly notable, with third-party interest up the wazoo. The characters themselves? Not so much. Notability cannot be shown for the characters, hence the article does not pass Notability. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, and use to merge individual character pages into it, keeping reasonably sized descriptions. Lists like this are the way to go for material of this sort, and is the usual consensus method.  in an article, the individual parts of it need not be notable. In fact, if they are, we should have individual articles on them in addition to the list, or instead of it.   DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, - per Mathewignash.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has some sources. Also see WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:18, 22 April 2011 (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.