Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duology (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 delete. It's up to editors to decide whether a redirect should be created and if so, where this term should redirect to. But there is no consensus for any of the proposed redirects here. Sandstein 08:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duology

Duology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log

)

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

PROD declined procedurally with the previous AfD in 2008. The original rationale, by

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Should we consider not having articles for trilogy, tetralogy, et cetera also? The other articles don't seem substantial either, simply referring to examples (which may not necessarily actually use a term like "tetralogy" in the real world). Maybe we should have a glossary article listing these terms, and provide related links where applicable? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. Trilogy does have some additional content, but that is mostly unsourced. Tetralogy is the same case as here: Definition + examples list. IceWelder [✉] 11:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Offline 19:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: per
  WP:GNG, no sources are cited in the article. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. Where relevant and necessary, link to wikt:duology instead. IceWelder [✉] 11:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a dictionary definition at best. Wikipedia explicitly says this is
  WP:SIGCOV to write a full article. Jontesta (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to list of feature film series with two entries (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The list is about duologies of films so is the most suitable redirect target. More content can be added to the list article mentioning that the list is of duologies of films. It is useful to retain the history so editors still have access to the content and can use the entries from the "Film", "Literature", and "Videogames" sections to expand the existing film article or to create new articles for books and videogames with two entries.

  Cunard (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Cunard. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC) Redirect to Series#Types of series in arts, entertainment, and media --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 15:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I don't find it appropriate to redirect
  duology to list of feature film series with two entries because "duology" is not film-specific. For example, just this past week, this from The New York Times refers to a book duology. I would re-emphasize a glossary article that lists the range of terms (up to a point) and link to the film list as an aside. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:NOTDICT and the lack of sources. Oppose the suggested redirect because duologies are not solely a film phenomenon. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 15:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per LaundryPizza03. Also: Unlike the articles on trilogy, tetralogy etc., there is no additional information surpassing a dictionary definition; the term is also non-standard and is not receiving much use anywhere, let alone in a serious publication. The relationship between the first instalment and it's sequel is covered in Sequel. — Alalch Emis (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the redirect doesn't make sense as it's not a concept specific to film/literature and would be confusing for a reader. StarM 14:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - duology has an entry in the Oxford Dictionary of English with an etymology of "mid 19th century: from duo- ‘two’, on the pattern of trilogy." – Wikipedia is not a dictionary (
  WP:NOT#DICTIONARY), but this is an established term in the arts used for approximately 170 years – Epinoia (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Regarding Epinoia's claim above, first, note that the Oxford Dictionary of English is a different work than the more authoritative Oxford English Dictionary. The OED does not consider duology a word. Second, even if the ODE's claim is correct, being a word doesn't make it an established term in the arts. The fact that there are no citations in the article, or easily searchable, suggests that it isn't. Dan Bloch (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2021 (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.