Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of film series with two entries


 * 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 of the debate was No consensus. Rje 12:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

List of films with one sequel
Indiscriminate collection of data. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Just as useful as Trilogies and Series. If you see something missing just add it. It may never be complete, but neither are pages about living people or current events.
 * Delete just what Wikipedia is not. Kevin 02:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete an indiscriminate collection of data to be sure, but, as the author said, "It is comparable to 'List of film trilogies' and 'List of film series'" M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is not that indiscriminate. Wikipedia is not paper encyclopedia.  Besides, someone a hundred years ago might say, “Hmmm, I wonder which films had but one sequel.” :) Dlohcierekim 03:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't think there's a term for these series yet (duplogy? :) ), but I felt these pairs were as worthy of a list as trilogies and series. Tim Long
 * Keep - I don't think there's a problem with keeping this list. - Richardcavell 05:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, it's not indiscriminate, but I can't see any possible use for it. J I P  | Talk 08:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Can't say I'm enthused by it, but to disallow this is to diallow the list of film trilogies, which would be nonsense. Vizjim 09:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 *  Delete . Or else we'll have list of films with two sequels and list of films with three sequels etc... Where would it stop. Ydam 09:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What we have is, as it says on the page, a "list of one-off films", a "list of films with one sequel", a "list of trilogies" and a "list of film series" (series being taken to mean more than a trilogy, e.g. Aliens franchise)Vizjim 09:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * hmm In that case I change to weak keep per what you just said. I must have missed that first time I looked at the page. Ydam 10:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This will be, at best, a vague list. Sequels are so incredibly common that any effort to maintain this list will be difficult at best. Trilogies, while common, are still rarer by a significant magnitude. That being said, if some editors of a particularly industrious bent want to keep the list fresh and current, who am I to stop them. It's all according to the rules, after all. --Agamemnon2 10:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This isn't an extremely notable topic and some of the lists in the series (especially the one-offs) would probably become excessively long. Cedars 13:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The parameters are poorly defined, the list can never be complete, and after all that it's useless. What reason could anyone possibly have for wanting to know what movies have one sequel? By the way, I would also vote "delete" for the "list of one-off films", "list of trilogies", etc. Listcruft, all of it. Kafziel 13:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT listcruft, unmaintainable, pointless. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete pointless. Presumably they move from this list to another as the second and subsequent sequels are rleeased?  On second thoughts, I don't care. Just zis Guy you know? 15:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a cruftastrophe. PJM 17:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Is THAT a neologism?? :) Dlohcierekim 17:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's neologism-cruft. Maybe. :) PJM 18:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Well-defined list with obvious appeal for users who want to know if a film has a sequel. That would seem rather important given the amount of money that is invested/made on these sequels. It also raises serious questions about why certain films got a sequel in the first place, or why certain sequels didn't lead to series a la Star Wars? Nothing pointless or indiscriminate about that and lot's of room for development. -- JJay 21:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So first they've got to guess if it's one sequel or multiple sequels and pick the right listcruft... Just zis Guy you know? 21:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have faith that our users/readers are intelligent enough to do research, find the right list and go from there. However, why is it that people who want to delete articles of this type feel obligated to use words like "pointless", "I don't care" and "listcruft"? Belittling other people's contributions is not the way to contribute constructively to the discussion. -- JJay 18:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Note:The page has been moved to List of film duologies and the AfD tag stripped off. I will be retoring it until such time as this discussion is over. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep – potentially useful list – Gurch 21:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. If anything, should be turned into a category. Aguerriero  ( talk ) 22:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete will never move past listcruft &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  22:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just a thought, but maybe this list (and the other similar ones) could be replaced by categories? That wouldn't be quite as useful (you wouldn't have them clustered), but at least it would still let a user find the tagged movies. -- Zawersh 07:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename - List of film duologies Lady Aleena 09:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as a useless list, with arbitrary criteria for inclusion. See WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment:How is a series of TWO films arbitrary? I think it is pretty specific. Lady Aleena 03:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as useless and would have to be continually updated. Technically two films constitutes a series, anyway, so that topic is already covered. I would, however, support a listing of true duologies -- not sequels, but actual continuations of the storyline. Had there only been two Lord of the Rings books, for example, then Fellowship and Two Towers would be a true duology. Deuce Bigalow Male Gigolo and Deuce Bigalow European Gigolo is not a duology. 23skidoo 15:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: List of film series is for any series of films with 4 or more films in it. Duologies and trilogies do not belong on that list. In regards to your comparison of LOTR and Deuce Bigalow, it is like comparing a animal with a mineral. They are completely different. (Personally I can't stand either.) I don't think that the film people would have a problem keeping the list updated. Lady Aleena 18:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: more useless listcruft, we already have Category:Sequel films. --Hetar 19:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The category is useless if the two films do not have similar names. I did not know The Chronicles of Riddick was a sequel to Pitch Black until after I watched the movie and then looked up the information on IMDb. I just thought Chronicles looked to be a neat sci-fi movie by the silent watching of the TV spots. (I mute commercials.) So, some duologies out there with vastly different titles would not be quickly noticable without the list to point it out. Lady Aleena 03:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Lady Aleena, Dlohcierekim and Richard Cavell. And don't worry, the folks at WikiProject Films are faithful, nay, zealous about keeping such lsist up to date. Her Pegship 06:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep encyclopedic list with a reasonable criterion of inclusion.  Grue   13:55, 21 May 2006 (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.