Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetralogy


 * 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.  Go  Phightins  !  21:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Tetralogy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

During Articles for deletion/Duology (2nd nomination), it was noted that this article, as well as the following two articles, are almost identical in content, consisting of nothing but a dictionary definition and an unsourced, possibly OR list of series. I am not nominating Pentalogy, which does have encyclopedic content, nor Trilogy, which lacks encyclopedic content but which I would expect to be encyclopedically notable. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 05:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 05:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. –Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d  c̄ ) 05:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d  c̄ ) 05:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Note that there is a corresponding category for each of the listed articles here.  For example, the now-deleted duology's corresponding category Category:Duologies still exists.  The same goes for tetralogy, hexalogy, and heptalogy, respectively corresponding to Category:Tetralogies, Category:Hexalogies, and Category:Heptalogies.  They may need to be considered as well.  ~  Ase1este charge-paritytime 06:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My current opinion is that the categories can be kept. Maybe a WP:CfD is required for this.  ~  Ase1este charge-paritytime 06:10, 18 February 2021 (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 and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. This is a WP:DICTDEF plus a list of some works that come in four parts. A category for the concept makes some sense, but an article or a list seem not necessary. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete just as duology: WP:NOTDICT, and the articles presents no non-trivial information that would make for independent notability. tetraology should be used where (and if) necessary. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 12:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging contributors from the duology AfD: . IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 12:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete for consistent treatment with duology or potentially redirect to Series -- Laukku  TheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 12:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep and adapt/translate the french article – The current article is terrible, a stub masking as a pseudo-list. However, tetralogy is a very standard and common (and important) term, unlike „duology”, which is mostly a non-word. Deletion isn't helpful because it will potentially hinder creation of a good article on this subject (from a purely practical standpoint). — Alalch Emis (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, as Alalch Emis says, this seems to be a distinct literary concept from the Greek theatre, as opposed to the other terms, which are neologisms with no historical use or meaning beyond giving a number of works. Although as they are used, the terms should probably be mentioned in this article and in "trilogy"—turn the others into redirects.  As a term with a specific meaning not immediately obvious from its roots, "tetralogy" seems to have enough distinct material to stand alone, as demonstrated by the French article.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Create a new article and Merge all these terms, such as duology, trilogy, tetrology, pentology, etc. – call the page "Series of Works" or something like that and have "Tetrology" and the other terms redirect to that page – cheers, Epinoia (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Categorize any remaining articles listed, then delete. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep tetralogy and heptalogy, both of which are important literary concepts in much the same way that the unnominated trilogy is (although less common). Duology and hexalogy can go. On a point of order, it looks as though this is at least the third AfD for heptalogy (see Articles for deletion/Heptalogy (2nd nomination)) which should surely be flagged up somewhere in the nomination? And has the creator,, been notified that an article they created has been put up for AfD? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep heptalogy per its previous AfD, its talk, and the fact that the nomination reasons given here do not apply to it, since it is fully sourced with no original research and includes encyclopedic information beyond a dictionary definition. Geez. Don't just lump things together needlessly. Thank you for the ping, -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep There was no good reason to delete duology nor is there for this.★Trekker (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The reference to the tetralogies of Classical Greek drama makes this more than a dictionary entry. TomS TDotO (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Hexalogy and Heptalogy as WP:DICTDEF and keep Tetralogy for now. These kinds of combined AFDs get confusing and make it difficult to form a consensus. It's possible we need a simple article for fictional series or something. I will agree that none of these articles have sufficient coverage to be more than a dictionary definition / list. But there is some consensus that Tetralogy has some WP:POTENTIAL and deserves time before deciding if it deserves an article once and for all. Archrogue (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 18:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BEFORE. A serious deep, Internet search must be done, or at least a little work, before nominations such as these. Editors lose respect and reputation when they nominate randomly. Bearian (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The thought of that has never given these editors pause though, and the administrators who frequent AfD's seem to tolerate and abet questionable or badly formed nominations. Haleth (talk) 13:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.