Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twinless twin


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 20:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Twinless twin

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested prod, the reason was:
 * 1) the article describes something that is real (twins do die) but does not distinguish very well it from other similar phenomena, particularly death of other immediate family members. In sentences like "Some twinless twins feel guilt that they have survived when their twin did not. Others may feel the need to live for two and do the things their twin cannot. Children and sometimes even adults who lose a twin can feel displaced within their family." 'twin' could very easily be replaced with 'sibling'. In "This is particularly so within families who have placed a great deal of emphasis on the fact that they were twins." 'twins' could just as easily be replaced with 'siblings' or 'the same gender' or 'nice'.
 * 2) there is no verification of the existence of being a twinless twin as a very different sort of grief or bereavement requiring its own article. Grief does not even link to articles specific to the loss of a sibling, parent or spouse.

I remain neutral on this case as I was the one who deleted it in the first place. Tone 08:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Small text
 * Comment It's completely unsourced and looks like a personal-opinion essay - what would be needed to save it would be some reliable sources showing that this a notable concept. (I haven't had time to look for possible sources myself, so I'm undecided - I'll leave it as just a comment for now). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Delete -- good points made above suggest that such an article in unencyclopedic and exists as a mere repository for listing twinless twins.  Now if you'll excuse me, I have to hurry and start the Orphaned child Brotherless sister article before this precedent is deleted.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 14:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am confident that there is an article Orphan which matches this one. (Linking before checking.) Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That article could use a section on grief and contains a list of famous orphans, as well as orphans in literature. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Brotherless sister would redirect to Only child, so it might be to late to write that one. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Possible Keep This is really about the feelings of people who have lost their twin. As shown by the websites linked these feelings are real. What is needed is for secondary sources to take note of this. If they have not yet then an article is not now possible by WP:Notable.  But still it is a legitimate topic and an article could be written later when sources are available. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep There are over 100 hits on google books http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Twinless%20twin%22&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=bks:1&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wp for "Twinless twin" they all seem to be used in the manor outlined in the article and appear to support the article in general. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per JeepdaySock; there are plenty of possible sources online. COI disclosure: I am a multiple. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - legitimate topic for an article, which has been the subject of a considerable amount of attention from multiple independent reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, look at the Google Scholar results. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sources show that the concept certainly exists, but doesn't show why it's notable. Possibly merge to Survivor guilt.    Snotty Wong   talk 19:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for Rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.   Snotty Wong   talk 19:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * CLARIFY: The article under discussion here was tagged for Rescue by User:Bearian in seeking assistance with its improvement.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment A virtually identical page was deleted in 2008. --MelanieN (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2010 (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.