Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doppelgänger

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 Speedy Keep. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 11:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doppelgänger

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research, content forking, and false synthesis in order to retroactively establish false terminology. Salvageable content should be merged into either Evil twin or Alter ego. See latest entry at talkpage for details. FinalGamer (talk) 09:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is, BTW, the first nomination, but the notification was done improperly in syntax somehow so the discussion link in the template at the article doesn't work and when you look at the article's source code, there's a link "for administrator use" pointing to a false "earlier" AfD dated today. --2.240.228.185 (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 10:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An evil twin or alter-ego is not the same thing as a doppelgänger. This isn't a content fork and the talkpage entry just seems a long winded rant by yourself that has existed for all of 3 hours. Clearly, if you think the content of the page is in question, then alert various interested parties and wait for their input, rather than stating the following: IF I don't like it, THEN delete. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I thought the nominator was 2.240.228.185, but it's someone else. But my point still stands. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Passes the general notability guideline and has a slew of reliable sources to back up its claims. Also, no original research is not in itself a reason for deletion. Ging287 (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. Not a content fork in the slightest. A well-known and specific term. The nom's reasons are all completely spurious. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs rewriting and header meanwhile. As the article goes, it is a clear demonstration of why paranormal believers are hardly ever WP:COMPETENT to write about the paranormal. We have references to "documented cases" and "scientific experiments", implying that there is great mystery here, which they assert "science can never solve". Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep second Barney Kugo2006 (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - There is a valid topic here, and a common literary trope... it just needs TLC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.