Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of twins


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 06:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

List of twins

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nothing but highly indiscriminate listcruft. Nothing notable or defining about being a twin in itself to begin with. Aside from BBC and maybe STV, none of the references used are even good quality sources. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic passes WP:LISTN as it is easy to find compilations of accounts of famous twins. See Twin Stories or The Everything Twins, Triplets, And More Book, for example.  Andrew D. (talk) 07:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You've likely misunderstood what I meant; being a twin is not a defining trait by itself. The people listed here are more famous for their occupations/positions within society than they are for simply being twins. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There are certainly cases where the twins worked together and their being twins was a significant part of their act. The Dolly Sisters, for example, who were huge in their day and who showed up on Mr Selfridge recently.  Andrew D. (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not a thing, SNUGGUMS. We have never limited lists to "reasons why people are famous." We don't even do that with categories, for which we require a higher threshold of significance than lists. postdlf (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * obliterate There are cases where a pair of twins are notable as a unit, but when we get to "Notable people with a non-famous twin" we are down into "trivia of birth". Mangoe (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So we could keep the notable cases and remove the non-notable cases.  Why do we have to obliterate everything? Andrew D. (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If we wanted to have a list of famous twins (that is, pairs of twins who were famous as such) that might be OK, but it would also be a different article. Mangoe (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Extremely weak Keep - I personally don't see the point to this article at all but with sources like the Daily Mail, Daily Star, BBC and STV it seems to meet GNG, Plus looking at the traffic it does get quite alot of hits a month so not really seeing the need to delete, Just needs expanding really. – Davey 2010 Talk 16:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Daily Mail and Daily Star aren't exactly reliable sources, and page views isn't a valid reason for keeping per WP:POPULARPAGE as it doesn't necessarily show a topic is notable. Snuggums (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 17:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep as standard biographical index of notable people per WP:LISTPURP, complementary to Category:Twin people per WP:CLN. Complaints about sourcing are completely irrelevant to deletion, but are rather just cleanup concerns, as it's obviously verifiable whether notable people are twins are not. If you don't like the sources in this list migrate them from their separate articles, and if (and only if) good faith research fails to turn up any sources that someone is a twin (or conclusively establishes they are not) despite them being identified as such in this list or their own article, then remove them from the list and the mention from their article. postdlf (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep There may well be a case for reducing the scope of this list to people for who notability includes the fact that they are twins but I see no case whatsoever for deleting it. R at  W eazle  19:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC) Notability is a Wikipedia article quite apart from the Wikipedia notability policy. Here are some examples of lists that include the term: Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and Move to "List of twins who are both notable". The article scope already seems limited in that way (i.e. to twins who both have Wikipedia articles, or who have a joint Wikipedia article) .Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't include self-references to Wikipedia standards such as notability in article titles. Inclusion criteria can be discussed on the article's talk page without having to retitle anything. postdlf (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * List of University of Massachusetts Amherst notable faculty
 * List of landmarks and notable buildings of Brighton and Hove
 * List of notable asteroids
 * List of Merritt Centennials notable players and alumni
 * List of notable United Kingdom House of Lords cases
 * List of historically notable United States Marines
 * List of haplogroups of notable people
 * List of Continental Basketball Association MVPs and notable alumni
 * List of unpublished books by notable authors
 * List of notable engineers in Nigeria
 * List of notable Creative Commons licensed works
 * List of notable coin collectors
 * List of notable pastors in Nigeria
 * No doubt we could find examples contrary to any of our MOS guidelines. Doesn't mean it's the right way to do it. See Manual_of_Style/Lists. postdlf (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting, thanks for the info. I say keep.  Why not have a list of twins who are both notable?  Seems fine to me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. The lists that I listed above no longer have "notable" in their titles.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep -The list is not only interesting, but its also an organized way to present notable people and relevant information S3venevan (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:INTERESTING doesn't exactly explain how/why something is notable enough to warrant an article. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 11:47, 23 April 2015 (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.