Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of teenage stoner movies

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 delete. Mailer Diablo 14:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of teenage stoner movies[edit]

Obvious listcruft, no benefit, the title is "List of teenage stoner movies", for god's sake. Why is this still at Wikipedia after almost a full year? Strong delete. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 13:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mmm, crufty. --Mikeblas 13:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft and definition is too subjective IMO. I wouldn't exactlly count the breakfast club as a stoner movie, would you? Ydam 14:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft. Perhaps more usefully implemented by listing articles under one or more existing categories. For example, category "teen movies" does exist ... I would guess there's also a category for "movies involving drug use", and movies that satisfy both are probably what the list creator had in mind. Additionally, this will make it less POV-specific. Best, Docether 15:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was a teenage stoner (now playing at your local cineplex!) however: Delete per nom. Listcruft ++Lar: t/c 15:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. But this may be the first wikipedia list on which I've seen every movie. -- GWO
Delete. I'd be ok with a cat on stoner movies, but this sho' is crufty. youngamerican (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I guess Harold and Kumar go to White Castle is an adult stoner movie -- Samir धर्म 16:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Voice of Treason 16:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reefer Madness! Delete. - Corbin ^{Be excellent} 17:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categorise and Delete Would make a fine category, but not an article. It's also somewhat subjective. jgp 19:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Starionwolf 20:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft. Pavel Vozenilek 20:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft. Not subjective though. (do they smoke weed in the movie, or do they not? It's that simple.) But it's a ridiculous thing to have on wikipedia, and it doesn't even list Harold and Kumar. M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 22:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subjective and useless Nintendudism. Grand master ka 03:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categorise. Good idea that man. Obviously if stoner films exists, then teenage ones at least deserve a cat. THE KING 04:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT Delete!!! Very informative page. There is absolutely no reason for deletion of this. Very biased anti-cannabis culture people have opted to try to delete a useful page, which is an addition to the "stoner movie list" page. Please open your mind. If you disagree with this article, then don't read it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.40.182.138 (talk • contribs)

Two things: one, "stoner movie" is hard to define. Two, if one could get a concrete definition, it would be better served as a category rather than a separate list page. jgp 21:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - CNichols 21:01, 30 May 2006 (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.