Could you please explain why this is a “fine” keyword? It is a terrible keyword.  Are contributors now being asked to add it to all movies that do not have sequels? (Remakes are not sequels.)

For a random example, take the five films nominated for the 1959 Best Picture Oscar:

Anatomy of a Murder (no sequel, so needs this nonsensical keyword)

Ben-Hur (a remake, but no sequel, so needs this nonsensical keyword)

The Diary of Anne Frank (no sequel, so needs this nonsensical keyword)

The Nun’s Story (no sequel, so needs this nonsensical keyword)

Room at the Top (has a sequel, so does not need this nonsensical keyword)

And, the film that should have been there:

Some Like It Hot (no sequel, so needs this nonsensical keyword) 

Please reconsider your decision.

Thank you for correctly processing The Social Network.  Now, there are only 169 titles with this unnecessary keyword.  Could you please audit these 169 titles to see if they may have, or are going to have, sequels, so it can be removed from them, too.

And, how can contributors be encouraged to add this keyword to the millions of other titles for which it is now a fine, legitimate keyword?

An incorrct decision has been made here. Could you please look into it.  Thank you.

If the staff does not want to delete it, I will undertake this as a project ... IF the deletions will be accepted. Oherwise, contributors should start adding this unnecessary keyword to a great number of titles.

Maya: I agree with Bradley that “stand-alone-movie-without-sequel" is not appropriate to be a keyword on IMDb.

This reminds me of the discussion a few years ago at https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/data-issues-policy-discussions/should-these-keywords-be-banned/6115d93d0188e87bcfa41d89 where the keyword of "no-lgbt-character" was discussed. (That keyword has apparently since been deleted.)

I commented, "Keywords ought to describe what is in the film, not what isn't there." Since that discussion came up just after Christmas, I mentioned that NBC had recently shown "Christmas Eve at St. Peter's Basilica" with Pope Francis celebrating mass, and said:

Among the actual IMDb keywords that could theoretically apply to this show are "no-alien-threat", "no-bones-broken", "no-brake-lights", "no-breakfast", "no-cowboys-in-this-film", "no-jetliner-in-this-film", "no-laugh-track", "no-parachute", "no-question-in-title", "no-senior-prom-date", "no-student-protests", and "no-wire-hangers", because, indeed, the program didn't have any of those. And I'm sure we could think of others, like "no-atheism" and "no-car-chase", since the show didn't have those either. But it would be silly to submit any of those as keywords for this program.

We should not try to use the Keywords section to duplicate other sections of IMDb. If someone wants to know whether a movie has a sequel or not, we have the Movie Connections section. If a film is known to have a sequel, it will have an entry in the "followed by" section of Movie Connections. If there is no entry there, it will mean that the film has no sequel, at least not one which has been made known to IMDb yet.

You wouldn't be able to use Connections to search for stand-alone movies, though.

I agree that "Keywords ought to describe what is in the film, not what isn't there.” An exception might be something like “no-dialogue” for a post-silent-era” title that literally has no dialogue.

@gromit82​ 

PS/FYI: "Movie Connections section" is not easy to edit,

only way to add a sequel is a fan or filmmaker knowing that that  is something that can be done

and then done thru sending IMDb webmail and wait for them to manually do it and reply to you by mail, this is something only experienced editors know how to do.

I find A LOT of titles where the sequel info/link is not there.