Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twinless twin (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) czar  ♔  04:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Twinless twin
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable concept, appears to have been written by one of these "support groups". In either case, it's written like an ad and has no hope of a future. We don't have articles for Parental death precisely because such a phenomena isn't notable enough for its own article. Nothing of any note in this page isn't already covered by grief. At this point the article just seems like an advert for twinlesstwins.org and an outlet for a "list of twinless twins", which seems a bit dumb considering that it was not a defining moment for, or notable characteristic of, any of the people listed. The list amounts to trivia, IMO, since the information is little more than a neat factoid at best. Inanygivenhole (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep A very poor article, but actually academic work has been done on the topic. For example, a book by Joan Woodward originally published by the University of Michigan, and see an article in Psychology Today in 2009. The article needs rescue, but the topic is notable.  --AJHingston (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve, per the excellent sources discovered by . Thanks, AJ.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  00:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep – It's a pretty badly-maintained article as it is now, but there is a lot of room for improvement. As said above,  has found some sources to add to the article, which makes the article notable. Epicgenius (talk) 14:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2013 (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.