Deletion of List of The Hills Have Eyes 2 characters

Comment: despite statements otherwise, Wikipedia has deleted character lists like this when there are no third party sources to . There's also the issue that this article is just fictional stories about each character when Wikipedia is . There is Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)|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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:VERIFYNOTABILITY||WP:NOTJUSTPLOT)

Comment: 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 #Reliable sources and notability|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 #REASON|reasons for deletion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:N||WP:PLOT||WP:SYN||WP:SALAT||WP:CFORK||WP:DEL)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:V||WP:N||WP:OR)