Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evil Twin (Comic Book Characters)


 * 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 delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 10:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Evil Twin (Comic Book Characters)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete this for POV, OR, and lack of verification. The listed pairs of characters are not twins. Any interpretation by which contributors call them "twins" invokes opinion. Listing interdimensional counterparts is redundant to another POV-laden article, List_of_character_counterparts_in_the_DC_multiverse. (The article title is also incorrectly capitalized.) Doczilla 03:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - entirely WP:OR, totally unreferenced, and totally subjective. Whose to say Venom is Spiderman's evil twin, and not Carnage?  Why are we even calling these people "evil twins" when the "evil twin" concept is a myth about actual twins?  Is there any objective way to classify two characters paired up like this?  --Haemo 03:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Venom came from Spiderman (the symbiote tried bonding with him first), and Carnage came from Venom (Carnage is Venom's offspring - if anything, Carnage would be Spiderman's 'evil psychopathic nephew'). The industry and the fan base both have no difficulty in seeing the nature of these relationships, so I'm not sure what the difficulty is here. Thanks. Starmiter 13:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Doczilla - the disagreement over the List of character counterparts in the DC multiverse is a separate disagreement and has no bearing here; please remove the reference to it. Thanks. Starmiter 05:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I could have skipped saying "POV-laden," but that doesn't change the fact that this article is largely redundant to parts of the other. Doczilla 05:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The formats are similar, but as far as redundancy is concerned, this one is a straight one-to-one comparison (with just a few exceptions) of 'good' characters paired with their 'evil' versions from 2 different comic book companies (with the expectation that there are more examples among other comic book companies that would be added as time goes by); the other is a general comparison of counterpart characters (both good and evil) from multiple universes within the specific DC Continuity during the pre-Crisis era. Since they are two separate entries, and both are separately being considered for deletion, I would point out that using one as a reason to negate the other (or support it) unfairly skews the decision-making process.  The best voting results would occur if they are treated as separate issues, so I again request that the reference here be removed.  Thanks.  Starmiter 05:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree - please review the main page Evil twin to see plenty of examples of pairs of characters that are not 'twins' in a biological sense, yet are still considered to be good/evil versions of a character. As for references:


 * Synonyms For Twin At Dictionary.com
 * Superman/modern Ultraman
 * Superman/classic Ultraman
 * Superman/Cyborg Superman
 * Superman/Bizarro
 * Superman/Dev-Em - basically, any other male Kryptonian using his powers for evil would qualify as an 'evil Superman,' but since that may be too vague a comparison, I'll concede this one
 * Batman/The Wrath
 * Batman/Prometheus
 * Batman/Modern & Classic Owlman
 * Batman/Batzarro - by nature of being a Bizarro-style clone (meaning, an imperfect copy, and the imperfection has typically meant doing evil things), that should be enough to qualify as an evil twin, but if not, I'll concede this one too
 * Spiderman/Venom
 * Wonder Woman/modern Superwoman
 * Green Lantern/Power Ring
 * Green Lantern/Sinestro
 * Flash/Johnny Quick
 * Flash/The Rival
 * Flash/Zoom
 * Flash/Reverse-Flash - proof is in the character name
 * Green Arrow/Merlyn
 * Captain Marvel/Black Adam
 * Superboy/Match
 * Hawkman/Golden Eagle
 * Hyperions, Nighthawks, Dr. Spectrums, & The Whizzer/Speed Demon - one set was 'Squadron Sinister,' the other set was 'Squadron Supereme' - self-explanatory


 * As for the capitalization error for the title, you got me - I concede. Thanks Starmiter 05:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The Evil twin article's status as a subjective hodgepodge of original research doesn't mean anyone should commit the same sin here. Dr.Who 05:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And yet, there does not appear to be the same effort to remove or streamline the main article, which seems at odds with the stance being taken on this minor sub-set. Is there a particular reason?  Thanks.  Starmiter 05:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - You can't seriously think that you can salvage this by posting a dozen or so "references" which totally fail WP:RS. I mean, look in the above, you have 19 total references - which are all either unreferenced fansites, Wikipedia or Wiki-like projects, forums, toy sellers, sites which don't mention "evil twins", blogs, dictionaries, or Amazon user-reviews.  You can't be serious that this is supposed to constitute "sourcing". --Haemo 06:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Response - I used these sites as references in the sense that they mentioned 'evil Batman' or 'evil Superman' etc., in addition to ones that made references as 'evil twin' (which I think is being taken way too literal in this discussion - be sure to see the main entry Evil twin to see that it's an evolved concept these days) as examples that I am not alone in my thinking (which would be the basis of the 'POV-laden' complaint at the top). Frankly, the comparisons should be self-explanatory all-around, especially if you click each one's link in the grid and read their entries - if you can do that and honestly conclude that these are not 'evil twins' in the sense that they are opposite versions of each other, I'll delete the entry myself.  Thanks.  Starmiter 13:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply - You basically admit here that this article constitutes WP:OR - as you should know, synthesis is a form of original research and is likewise prohibited. You admit you have no reliable sources for your assertions on this page, and the page in question, and that the criteria for inclusion is your own subjective judgement about who is, and is not, an "evil twin" of another character.  That's a solid reason for deletion right there.  --Haemo 20:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename Evil Twin is perhaps the wrong name to use, I'm not sure of the proper choice, but as a concept, it's certainly a given that there are opposing versions of various characters. Then again, this page is unreferenced, so it might well serve to delete it and encourage the primary editor to work at the page from a new direction.  FrozenPurpleCube 05:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wholly OR in its current form; no reliable third-party sites discuss these pairings as "evil twins".  In fact, the same is probably true no matter what this could be renamed to.  It remains a list of paired comic book characters linked by the author's impressions of similarity.  If other, appropriate, sources make those same connections, we can revisit the topic at that time. Serpent&#39;s Choice 09:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't suppose you've read any of the comics, or perhaps seen a Challenge of the Super Friends cartoon, or even clicked and viewed through the above-provided reference links? If you have, then I'm at a loss as to how you can conclude these are solely my impressions.  Perhaps renaming the category 'Opposite Number' would be better?  It appears that people are trying to interpret 'evil twin' in a literal-sense, rather than in a literary-sense.  Thanks. Starmiter 13:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue is that whatever I or Serpent's Choice or whoever thinks about whether or not you are right, we can't have an article about it until reliable secondary sources say it. Read WP:OR for an overview of Wikiepdia's policy on original research.Chunky Rice 20:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly - this article is based on a subjective judgement made by author, and is totally void of WP:RS which would make this anything other than WP:OR. --Haemo 20:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete unsourced WP:OR. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As mentioned above, it conflicts with WP:OR and WP:RS. Although as a concept it does show merit and shouldn't be summarily dismissed, anymore than the other previously mentioned Article for Deletion. It is simply that neither meet the criteria to exist on this particular site. Netkinetic  (t / c / @) 23:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Response Delete it - I no longer care to carry on the fight over something so trivial; just be sure to give the same rigorous review to the main article, Evil twin, since it would seem that it is filled with the same kind of "Original Research." And you may want to revise the WP:OR to include 'Original Conclusions,' since the only 'research' done with this grid entry was to make sure the Wikipedia links were correct. Thanks. Starmiter 20:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect and Merge any relevant verifiable information to Evil twin, although it seems to be a lot of duplicate info. Using the table may be a way of cleaning up the appearance of the Evil twin article.  hombre de haha 20:25, 26 April 2007 (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.