Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twin flame

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.

Twin flame

Twin flame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is an ill-defined concept, and despite being tagged for notability concerns since December 2014, there are still no reliable sources in the article. Slashme (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia is going to have articles about Abrahamic religions, or pages about Mary_Magdalene, it seems wrong to delete this page without displaying some level of bias, even though the subject matter is considered non-religious. The New Age was/is a spiritual alternative to the rigidities displayed by some rather large religions, and people have found hope and belonging in them. I was directed to the page from a general Internet search, it is not a subject in which I can contribute, but I saw the note and felt I should comment. In a few other non-Wikipedia pages I've read about this particular subject, no mention was made of mythology as it was in this article, and it is worth pointing out that section is referenced with what I believe would be considered a reliable source: mit.edu. Gzuufy (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that New Age is notable as a concept, but the question here is whether anything in this article is properly verifiable. If the article has been tagged since last December and no-one has taken the trouble to bring it up to scratch, I seriously question how important the topic is. Maybe it can go onto the New Age Wiki at Wikia in the mean time. I see they don't have an article about Twin Flames yet. --Slashme (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"...whether anything in this article is properly verifiable." Are you saying that mit.edu's translation of Plato's Symposium is an unverifiable or unreliable citation? Gzuufy (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me rephrase that. This article contains much that is verifiable, and much that is relevant to the New-Age concept of Twin Flames. Unfortunately, what is verifiable isn't relevant, and what is relevant isn't verifiable. --Slashme (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find your objection to the label to be rather circular (verifiable but not relevant and relevant but not verifiable), and difficult to understand. I started wondering if Plato's text had no relevance to what was written in the article. Thus, I read (very) little of The Symposium, quickly finding the relevant section by searching for "four". I believe I can see the interpretation written in Wikipedia's Twin Flame article in that text. Curiously, literature is somewhat different from mathematics which has more well defined rules, while the former is much more open to multiple interpretations. I personally can see a number of ideas expressed in that text which more rigid and long-established religions have declared as immoral (such as homosexuality).

This article's title "Twin Flame" appears to be a label for a conception of love which exists among some groups. I looked at Google books momentarily, and saw that Elizabeth Clare Prophet wrote about Twin Flames in some of her works. I'm not familiar with that work of hers or any of her other writings, but I am familiar with the fact that she's a notable and long time contributor in the New Age movement.

One of the purposes of an encyclopedia is to explain topics to readers. It's been noted by others that verifiability, not truth is part of Wikipedia's verifiability construct. I'd suggest leaving the banners at the top (except for the deletion banner), and be patient. Since folks who write at Wikipedia are unpaid volunteers (for the most part), you can't just slap up a banner and expect a quick response as you could with paid employees whom you can fire at will. I've occasionally seen citation needed requests on some Wikipedia articles that are several years old. Gzuufy (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge / Redirect over to Soul, since the general concept of what one's soul is (assuming that it exists), where its boundaries lie (or 'lay'[?]), and how it bonds with some other person appears like something that's better handled as a short discussion there CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2015 (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.