Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of film series with two entries (3rd nomination)


 * 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. ( X! ·  talk )  · @961  · 22:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

List of film series with two entries
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Two hardly constitutes a series and this is random inclusion criteria. I would nominate the other articles in this series, but I'll see what the feedback is for this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC) 1. Two does make a series and if not it were a case for renaming not deletion. 2. Nothing is random about this criterium. In contrary, it's specific and well defined. You really need to come up with better arguments to convince anyone beyond a few hardcore deletionists Keep —PanchoS (talk) 06:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * delete as random inclusion criteria. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 06:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as I didn't realize we also had a precedent for similar lists for films with three or four entries. That, and I don't think the criteria could be any clearer. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep; the inclusion criterion is well-defined and there is a limited number of possible entries given that there are only so many films that meet our notability test. Tisane (talk) 06:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The feedback was negative in two nominations. How come some people can't leave a list alone that doesn't hurt anyone but is interesting to some film-maniacs? Is it sheer lust for destruction? — That was my opinion. The arguments are:
 * Delete. This is pointless and trivial, not to mention two make a pair not a series.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) 08:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I really don't like these pages, and always try to keep an eye on them as they are immensely flawed, and it seems sometimes subjective as to what should or shouldn't be included.  However, given previous nomination attempts, and familiarity of these pages, I'd suggest that WP:SNOWBALL applies here.  Rob Sinden (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that WP:SNOWBALL applies here, I hope you know that.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) 14:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm - maybe I used the term the wrong way round. What I meant was that it seems a foregone conclusion that no matter how hard we try, we'll never get these pages deleted.  Rob Sinden (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agreed with PanchoS, I would think two would make a series/franchise, though, without a doubt I think this article needs improving, I'm kind of sparing it for now. I probably won't if I see this in deletion nominations again. But I'm sparing it for now. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly meets the requirements for a stand-alone list and is part of a collection of lists that are clearly defined by number in a series. There are complimentary lists for 3, 4, 5 through the more than 10 list, that work together to classify film series by a clearly defined, discriminate set of criteria. I do not argue WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but rather point out that merging all of these into List of film series would be far too large for our purposes, and would be the end result of deleting these seperate lists. None of the delete arguments specify policy-based grounds for deletion, and given the existence of a systematic classifaction among multiple lists, the inclusion criteria here are clearly not random in any way. Nothing has really changed since the last AfD that would provide a basis for a different result.  Jim Miller  See me 14:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It serves the same reference function as list of film trilogies or List of film series with four entries, etc., which is that people would consult such a list to see which films had sequels to a film.  Nominator probably should include others if the complaint is that we should not have such lists.  The only argument that I see for deleting this list specifically, and not deleting others, is to the effect that "one sequel isn't as notable as two or three sequels", which I don't agree with at all.  Films that have moderate success at the box office will often be followed by a sequel, which is either successful and leads to a "(Movie Title) III", or unsuccessful and brings the franchise to an end.  Failure is as notable as success.  If there were a list that combined all films that had the further adventures of their characters (whether it happened II, III, IV, V or more times), then this would be section of that list.  But to paraphrase the poem "If All the Seas Were One Sea", "if all the lists were one list, what a big list that would be".  If someone has made individual 2-3-4-5-etc. lists of films that had sequels, keep 'em all or delete 'em all.  But this list should be treated no differently than the other multiple lists.  Mandsford (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. How about a change in the title? It was called List of films with one sequel once. — Rankiri (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Then someone would make the prequel argument. At least this way it's consistent with other similarly named articles.  Please see previous title discussion here.  Rob Sinden (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a suggestion. I have no strong objections to the current title. — Rankiri (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All suggestions for improvement of an article are welcome. In this instance, I agree with Rob that it's best to have consistency in the names of these lists.  Mandsford (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as it is an integral part of the "film series" series of articles. A series starts with two films and grows from there. If it stops at two, then it belongs on this list, but if it gets bigger, then add it to another list. LA (T) @ 16:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per arguments made here and at Articles for deletion/List of film series with two entries (2nd nomination). There is recognition of this list's usefulness; no need to be destructive here. Erik (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge or Blow it up and start over another classic example of "List of A that is also X" Why not have one single list and break it out into sections by how many installations in the series? Nefariousski (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There was, at one time many many moons ago, a singular list of film series. However that got extraordinarily large. Because of that, it was broken into several lists according to series size. There are now hundreds of film series on all of the lists which would make a singular lists unwieldy not only to view, but also to edit. There are probably over a hundred legitimate series on this one list alone. (I haven't looked at it since the titles of the lists were "simplified.") There are more than likely an equal amount of trilogies. Remember, there is a suggested page size limit for a reason, and to try to stay as close to that size limit as possible, the lists were broken up. LA (T) @ 06:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This and its fellow "film series" lists are useful encyclopedic resources for many people, including myself, and does not violate Wikipedia's policies in any way, as precious attempts to delete them has shown (and I'm getting sick of them frankly). Sure, the lists are incomplete, and maybe even flawed, but many would argue that that is the case for Wikipedia in its entirety. Oh, and yes, a series starts with two. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - potentially unmaintainable, and arbitrary. Two items does not make a series.  It's entirely possible to have a series which contains two films but contains at least one of something else (a TV miniseries, for instance), but someone making a sequel or a "re-imagining" doesn't magically make a "series" of films any more than I have "a series of legs".  81.111.114.131 (talk) 03:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment You are correct, remakes are not part of a series, so are not supposed to be on this list. Sequels and prequels within the same do count, however, remakes do not. Reimaginings and reboots are just remakes trying to sound better than what they really are. There is also a list specifically for remakes. However, there are enough legitimate series of two films which merit inclusion on this list. LA (T) @ 06:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I can find nothing here to suggest that a series can't be two.    Rob Sinden (talk) 09:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That definition also contains nothing to suggest that a series can't be one or zero. What's your point?  81.111.114.131 (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete A category would be a more suitable form of organization, if any. All these flms have in common is that they have sequels, which is a tenuous basis for a list. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment A category does not allow for the proper listing of series of films. There are series of films where the titles do not look at all the same. Sure Sister Act and Sister Act 2 have titles which would be back to back, but Once Upon a Christmas and Twice Upon a Christmas would be listed under two different letters of the alphabet. LA (T) @ 09:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the titles are similar is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether or not a film had a sequel. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - trivial intersection. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 15:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - There seems to be no point to have this article (if you could call it an article) when a category would easily suffice. There isn't anything on this page that says "notability", it's just a list of films that have a sequel. Why exactly can we not have "Category:Film series with two entries"? There isn't a reason why, because if there is a legitimate reason to not create a category for such a topic, then clearly that would also apply to an article that circumvents said policy against any category.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Please see my above comment to WesleyDodds. Also, that category would be for articles on the series but not the individual films. So, if there were articles such as Sister Act (film series) and Once Upon a Christmas (film series) then those articles would go into your proposed category, however not the individual films. LA (T) @ 21:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as this list has no verifiable definition in accordance with WP:Source list, without which it is just a collection of loosely assoicated of topics without any externally validated rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia. A verifable definition is also needed to demonstrate that it is not the product of original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * '''Keep - Per User talk:TenPoundHammer. And even if there was a category, as some have suggested, per WP:LSC that would not make this list inappropriate. Rlendog (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2010 (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.