Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mutants in Wrong Turn

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. — Cirt (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mutants in Wrong Turn[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not for plot-only description of fictional works, and such description of the Wrong Turn series is no exception. The existence of this list constitutes excessive description of these films, in my opinion. As stated by this guideline, "articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should adhere to the real world as their primary frame of reference. The approach is to describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded." These articles do not do so, and I don't think that they ever could do so. The mutants in these films should be covered briefly in the main articles instead. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for the other characters in the Wrong Turn series, which is why I'm also nominating this other list for deletion:

Comment I originally PROD'd this article. I removed my PROD after I stumbled accross Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mutants in The Hills Have Eyes. While I disagree with the consensus at the AfD for the Hills Have Eyes-related page, I believe that consensus has equal applicablity here. Singularity42 (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. Unlike these lists, the Hills Have Eyes articles have the real world as their primary frame of reference, as there are clearly sources available to make that possible. In addition, compared to the Wrong Turn series, The Hills Have Eyes is a far more successful franchise that has apparently drawn far more coverage in independent sources. Taking all that into consideration, I wouldn't say that local consensus is equally applicable in this case. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No out-of-universe context or notability. --Crusio (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WAF since the article has only in-universe information. On Wikipedia, in-universe information needs to supplement out-of-universe information for a better understanding of a topic's real-world context. This article does not try to accomplish that and instead writes indiscriminately about the films themselves. I did a search engine test but did not find much said about the mutants directly. I would recommend a film series article (since there are three films) with a brief mention of each actor and their role. We could do a cast table to show which characters appeared when, as some are recurring. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this in-universe list (WP:WAF, WP:NOT#PLOT). Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article is an unnecessary split of Wrong Turn and its sequels. There is not even verifiability due to the complete lack of references, so almost all content is original research by synthesis at best. The list is written with an in-universe perspective that lacks real-world perspective so it is a plot-only description of a fictional work and, thus, it falls into what Wikipedia is not and does not meet the criteria of appropriate topics for lists. There is no presumption that the list has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, so it does not meet the criteria of notability for stand-alone lists either. There is no evidence that the characters as a topic meet the general notability guideline or that they should be treated outside of the plot of the main articles. I do not see anything salvageable from this article. All this also applies to the other nominated list, List of Wrong Turn characters. Jfgslo (talk) 14:42, 24 June 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.