Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dilogy

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. Sandstein 21:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dilogy[edit]

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

WP:DICTDEF would apply, only that the unsourced WP:OR article actually doesn't match the usual dictionary entry of "dilogy (plural dilogies) Ambiguous or equivocal speech or discourse. Repetition of a word or phrase. A series of two related works quotations". To be fair the term is used by urbandictionary, and by some modern sources in this sense ("smaller than trilogy"), however the entry would fail DICTDEF in any event in its current form. Trilogy "has meat" as this form of serial works has been analyzed in and of itself, something that seems to be lacking for this unused term Icewhiz (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Domdeparis (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that it's a synonym for duology, fwiw. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also tagged it {{Disputed inline|Talk page section|date=November 2017}} since I don't know how one can say that groupings of two are especially rare. (The use of this term over duology is, in my experience). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The claim is in relation to a planned series of books, movies etc. It might be true - most so called dilogies out there are probably failed trilogies - where the 3rd installment was not completed.Icewhiz (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I still don't understand: a planned 3-part series of things that ends up being two would be a dilology and not a duology? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's a whole rather eye-glazing thing here. I think it's more a case that dilology has other meanings that duology doesn't have: in fact, the Wiktionary page in question lists the "two part" meaning last. Anyway, delete or transwiki redirect. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2017 (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.