Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winklevoss twins

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. There is consensus to not keep this article. There is no consensus about whether a dab page is needed at this title. So everybody is free to create one, and others can then contest that at XfD if they want to. Sandstein 14:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Winklevoss twins

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The twins are notable, and hence they have their own, longer and more developed articles: Cameron Winklevoss and Tyler Winklevoss. This page should be a disambig, its current de facto WP:POVFORK existence is not helpful to the readers. There was a RfC on the article's talk page a few years back which seemed to have a majority for merging the two articles on individuals into the twins article, but this was never done, and the articles on each individual have grown since and are B-class, but this POVFORK remains a start-class. Pinging participants of that RfC: User:BDD (op), User:Dezastru, User:Abhayakara , User:Kaldari , User:Ayzmo and User:Dinovettri. I think it is better two have articles about each person, as they seem to be individually notable per NBIO, with the article here becoming a disambig (there is probably little if anything worth merging). Either way, we don't need three articles about two individuals. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator. A set of twins is not a separate entity. There are already articles about each person. Lightburst (talk) 03:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of twins#Businesspeople . Their "twinness" is not a notable detail, unlike Chang and Eng Bunker, so it doesn't require a standalone article. This is also not suitable for a dab page (neither individual is a "twins"). Clarityfiend (talk) 05:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator, that the two sesperate articles for each of the twins covers the topic sufficiently. This article is redundant. Jmbranum (talk) 05:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wholeheartedly agree with nominator, I think a redirect to List of twins#Businesspeople as suggested above would be confusing for readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katie lt3 (talk • contribs)
Speedy Keep The nomination proposes that the page be edited into a different format. Another rival discussion agreed a merger. None of these things require deletion. It is best to keep the edit history of all relevant pages so that we can understand the confusion of this case and attribute it to those responsible. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". Andrew🐉(talk) 09:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I have no objection to soft delete as the outcome (disambig without hard deletion of history). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nom. There is no information here that is not or cannot easily be in the individual articles. // Timothy :: talk 12:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restore as disambiguation page I started this page as a disambiguationpage here and it should be restored as a disambiguation page, I wouold have done it myself if I had realised that the disambiguation page was wrongly removed! ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 12:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DAB per Richard. It is a plausible search term, and WP should provide a suitable landing spot. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 14:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to dab per above. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (if that is the appropriate terminology) to a disambiguation page that points readers to each of the twins' individual biographies. This pairing of two brothers doesn't rise to the level of, say, Walton family. - AppleBsTime (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to DAB - The article is redundant to the articles on the two individuals. But, the term is a very plausible search term and a disambiguation page would be helpful in navigation to those individual articles. Rorshacma (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do not disambiguate. Per Clarityfiend, this is not an ambiguous term, where either individual can equally be referred to by the phrase. If it was kept, it would at best be a set index, but is probably better redirected somewhere along the lines of the unsigned proposal by User:Katie lt3 above to redirect to List of twins#Businesspeople. BD2412 T 04:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to the closing admin: this discussion has no more authority to deem this unambiguous phrase "ambiguous" than it does to deem the page at issue a Featured Article. BD2412 T 04:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Disambiguate, that is, make the page refer readers to each twin, but do not create a Winklevoss twins (disambiguation) page. Otherwise, delete as the fact that they are twins is not notable. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 17:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What POV is this supposed to be pushing as POVFORK? --BDD (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am guessing this is just melodramatic language, which Piotrus seems to have a habit of using with the (I hope false) belief that it improves the odds of his various calls for the deletion of articles. - AppleBsTime (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate: Per reasons above and nominator. The twins are both notable on their own. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no benefit to actual deletion, and in practice, the current article works just fine to disambiguate, with prominent links to each twin's individual article. A true disambiguation page is nonsensical: there aren't two people (or other topics) each referred to as "Winklevoss twins", just the twins themselves. --BDD (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2020 (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.