Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold & Kumar


 * 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.

Harold & Kumar
The result was   KEEP. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article contains no information that is not present in each individual article, it is in fact plot repeated twice, once in each film summary and again for each character. It contains only two films and a proposed third and there is not enough information available on the series to warrant an article for an overview concerning it. Like films such as The Hangover, I don't believe the films require a "series" article and should be contained in each individual article with a sequel section as well as merging what little information here is worth salvaging, entirely from the third movie entry. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seems harmless enough, almost a disambig for the duo, with more sourced info on the page than just the movies themselves. The characters themselves are notable and sourced, and they are known for more than a single movie.  As a stand alone, would seem to pass GNG.  While no where as big as Cheech and Chong, in both instances the "team" by itself is notable.  It is just a matter of where do we draw the line.  In this case WP:N, WP:V are met.  Dennis Brown (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep because it appears that the third film is in post-production, and I think that three films warrant a film series article. This article just needs some work. Plot summaries and character descriptions should be more succinct. We can have a table of recurring roles, a table of box office figures, and a table of critical reception scores. I would do away with the film infobox, though, since they are clumsy-looking in series articles. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 23:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think number of films should be a qualifier for a series article. Does Crank (film) need a series article?  Does Tremors (film)?  Does Meet the Parents, Hot Shots! or Escape from "Insert place"?  I'm not against the films, I like them, but I don't believe they're notable enough that they cannot be contained in their own articles any more than The Hangover is which is a much bigger, notable film.  Harold and Kumar is a cult film, or two films and maybe the characters should have an article that discusses their real world notability but other than that I cannot see what this article could ever offer.  The individual articles themselves are quite spartan because the real world information for these films is not that high.  Unlike the film's characters, heyo. EDIT If the information can be found I do agree with an article for Harold and Kumar the characters.  Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that a film series article at its most basic should be an aggregation of information. The article can serve as an overview of a given set of films. Instead of the readers going to each article, they can go to one. With two films, the benefit is not great, but I think that starting with three films, a series article is more beneficial. You mentioned that the individual articles are spartan, but I disagree that it is because of a lack of information out there. On Metacritic, each film has at least 27 mainstream reviews. I suspect the articles are not very developed because most people aren't interested in the films' backgrounds; the films themselves are their own reward. However, that doesn't mean we should deprive editors of the space to use for potential growth. Regarding the characters, I think they could very well be covered here too because it would make little sense to have an article for each character. We can adjust the scope of this article to be broader and encompass the characters and their films. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 00:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have had an article for each character, just a single article for both, neither is relevant without the other and they're never apart so their notability is as a duo rather than individual.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This is the way we treat series articles in encouraging further development through regular editing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is a notable series and the article contains good series information that might not be as evident in the individual articles. Eauhomme (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Have you actually read the article? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Answer One, yes I did. Two, article quality is not generally a deletion criteria. Improve it, don't delete it. Eauhomme (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not referring to the quality, you stated it contained information that might not be as evidence in each film's respective articles. I asked if you read it because it's all plot and OR except for the third film entry which should be in that particular article since the article itself is lacking.  I was asking because it doesn't currently contain any good series information. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Snow keep. Per the unanimous above keep discussion.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Snow keep per above. I would have closed this debate myself, but I'm taking a self-imposed wikibreak.  This is a notable, even notorious, motion picture series.  I thought the first one was terrible, but that doesn't matter.  All that matters is that an article  describing the films, and acting as a dab page, would be a helpful addition to The Project, which is after all read by these film's viewership. Individual issues with the article can be resolved through the normal editing process. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 31 May 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.