Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twin concepts


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Twin concepts

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No (or no reliable) external sources and no pages appear to link to it. Plastikspork (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to dualism or delete — we already have one article on this general topic, we don't need twins. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It is alright, you delete what you pleas. I have a question though. What is dualism? This is what you have got there. Where is a definition?

Dualism denotes a state of two parts. The word's origin is the Latin duo, "two". The term 'dualism' was originally coined to denote co-eternal binary opposition, a meaning that is preserved in metaphysical and philosophical duality discourse but has been diluted in general usage. I hope you know how to make a definition, it is in the wikipedia somewhere.

Vakeger (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as OR. For the benefit of the commenter above: Dualism is both defined and discussed in, er, the article on Dualism. Metaphysical dualism gets a look-in. But i'd hardly say that the random examples from economics included in the article currently under discussion were part of a major philosophical discourse on dualism and duality. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"If you nominated twin concepts for deletion, then answer my question first: What is dualism, the redirect? Where is the definition? To remind you: am encyclopaedia is The encyclopedia as we recognize it today was developed from the dictionary in the 18th century. A dictionary primarily focuses on words and their definitions, and typically provides limited information, analysis, or background for the word defined. While it may offer a definition, it may leave the reader still lacking in understanding the meaning, significance or limitations of a term, and how the term relates to a broader field of knowledge."
 * Comment: The following comment related to this discussion was posted on my userpage, which I have copied here for the record:

- Vakeger (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be great if we could keep the discussion all in one place. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. Not sure that anything here is worth merging or redirecting to dualism.  I don't see any sources relating "twin concepts" to dualism, and both general Google and Google Scholar bring forth random stuff in the first few pages rather than anything relating to the subject matter of this article - whatever the subject is. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment : Vakeger, arguments in Articles for Deletion discussions usually proceed on the basis of Wikipedia policy and related essays and opinion pieces, which are found in the Wikipedia: namespace and are referenced with links like this one, rather than by cut-and-pasted definitions drawn from the main namespace. As they stand, your arguments against deletion are somewhat incoherent, partly due to this approach. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete unsourced OR. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2009 (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.