Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soap Opera "supercouples"

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. It is recommended that each article be nominated individually. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soap Opera "supercouples"[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete. All of these articles are excessive WP:PLOT and have no WP:RS in order to show WP:N. Most of these characters have their own pages anyway, making these pages look a little WP:FANCRUFT-ish. Not one of these articles has an "Impact" or "Reception" section, meaning that they are purely WP:INUNIVERSE. Despite User:Flyer22 (who I have notified) posting invisible comments/talk page notices on some articles, stating that he was going to prove notability in summer 2007, nothing seems to have been done. I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND THE CLOSING ADMIN that this is not a majority vote, as I expect an army of "fans" from WP:SOAPS to join in and vote due to WP:ILIKEIT. On a similar note, I do not want anybody to assume that WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as I looked through and some articles were clearly notable - these were not. DJ 08:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete All. Wow; the new bilateral-relations technique for maor articles. These *are* heaps of plot regurgitation without much pretense about being anything else. Nominator states the issue well; I concur. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 10:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: wikipedia is not a collection of WalMart check-out counter soap-booklets or mouthpiece of ET. Seb az86556 (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have not gotten around to fixing up those articles; been busy fixing up other lousy soap opera articles. As the nominator above says, most of those listed here do not yet establish notability. But I do point out that six of these articles do: Luke Spencer and Laura Webber are studied in a variety of academic sources, and are credited with creating the term Supercouple. Their article, despite being lousy, does provide significant notability. Deletion debates should not be for cleanup. A ton of notability can be added to that article; a simple Google search will even show, and Rocksey and I have already planned to fix it up. So nominating it for deletion boggles my mind, and I say "Keep" to Luke and Laura. Steve Andropoulos and Betsy Stewart's wedding attracted 20 million viewers, making it the second highest-rated hour in American soap opera history; that can likely be expanded upon. Frisco Jones and Felicia Cummings can be noted in television studies, and is noted in one soap opera criticism book as a study (which is in the article). John Black and Marlena Evans (which does have a reception section), Josh Lewis and Reva Shayne, and Holden Snyder and Lily Walsh are all noted by Entertainment Weekly. That is major outside press; it is not everyday that a soap opera couple gets attention from Entertainment Weekly. Those six articles can most definitely be expanded in a notable way for an encyclopedia. I cannot really argue against deletion for the other articles, however. If I can find notability for them one day, I will recreate them. And, oh...I am a "she," by the way, and there is not an army of "fans" from WP:SOAPS (not active ones, anyway). Flyer22 (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Luke and Laura; Delete others unless references are available. Good heavens, even I've heard of Luke and Laura, and I've never watched soaps. They are by far the most well-known "Supercouple". Powers T 12:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the whole lot of them. While the soap operas themselves are notable, I don't think any of these "supercouples" are. Most of the articles seem to consist mostly of tens of kilobytes of plot descriptions with no real-world notability. JIP | Talk 16:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. How are Luke and Laura not notable? Or any other soap opera supercouple who passes WP:Notability due to having significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources? Just because an article is not fixed up does not make it "not notable." Flyer22 (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Luke and Laura, notable outside the program. Delete the rest, not so. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. I have removed the Luke and Laura article from the discussion. DJ 17:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*merge all to "List of characters of X" type articles. No reason the material can't be covered, but they don't need their own articles either. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DGG - speedy close and renominate after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. These are better handled individually as some may have notability, but it is highly unlikely that anyone will take the time to research them individually, instead just voting on a general principle (as I myself did.) Those who dislike article on fiction will vote delete, those who like such articles will vote keep, and those who want compromise will vote merge. No actual discussion of the notability of the subjects will take place in this format. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thank you for being so honest about this, ThaddeusB. Flyer22 (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and nominate individually. Every individual one of these has different factors--for one thing, they are in different series, and the importance of the series is a relevant factor. Second, the prominence of the couple's role will be different in each instance. An poorly considered and potentially disruptive nomination. I notice JM correctly associates it with the early bilateral relations nominations--a prime example of how not to do things, that caused extensive long-lasting ill-will and disruption. (They at least had the extenuating factor that they were recent robot-created articles, and the inappropriate response was explainable in part by the equally inappropriate manner of creation.) Thaddeus' suggestion of lists may be appropriate in some cases, but not all. Though I often suggest just this, it's in individual cases--in some of these, it may be a logical way to deal in combination with two major characters. I strongly urge the nominator to withdraw this and do it properly. I would hate to lose the convenient tool of joint nominations because of inappropriate use. DGG (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete As no objective rationale to distinguish "supercouples" is furnished, and as individual notable characters have articles, the need for these is non-existent. The current article Supercouple is rife with OR and I do not find in it a sufficient means of determining what is or is not a supercouple. On the basis of Flyer22's work on the Supercouples article, and a presumption that he will weed out the ones above which are iffy, I change to Keep Collect (talk) 11:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Collect (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I do not understand what you mean. The only objective rationale that needs to determine what a supercouple is, according to Wikipedia, is reliable sources stating the couples as supercouples. For these couples, the fictional ones at least, to have articles on Wikipedia, there needs to be significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources about the couples. Some soap opera supercouple articles on Wikipedia have that, the ones DJ spared (except one, though that is working out now). Individual notable characters having articles does not take away from whether the couple that character is a part of is also notable and should have its own article. Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer, for example, seem to be far more notable as a couple than as individual characters (though their couple article needs further fixing up). The Supercouple article is not rife with original research (OR), but is rather backed up by valid sources (though, admittedly, the article needs more work). It is nowhere near close to original research as, say, Superhero is. Flyer22 (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note. Since this debate, Collect and I have talked over improvements for the Supercouple article. Collect's main problem with the article was/is that the term does not seem to be as clearly defined as a lot of other terms. I talked with Collect about that, and have very recently further improved the article and again (though not simply the Definition section, and even though the term is always going to be an entity of several elements and a little subjective). Flyer22 (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed you have worked hard on Supercouples, and (assuming you will delete the ones which are iffy on your own) I change my opinion. Collect (talk) 11:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • LOL, I am a "she," but it is okay, since I get called a "he" a lot on Wikipedia and have identified more with the male gender role and "male activities" since childhood. Yes, I propose that the supercouple articles that cannot be brought up to Wikipedia notability standards be deleted or redirected. Thank you for having faith in me and being a pleasure to work with. Flyer22 (talk) 00:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All per nomination. None of these articles are suitable for inclusion. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 18:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you have examined them all? You have checked for sources for each of them? What are your arguments for each one of them. You may be right, but it takes more than bald assertion. DGG (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and nominate individually per DGG. I'm not sure how many of these should be kept,and this mass deletion makes it next to impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff. AniMatedraw 20:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all A notable aspect of a notable work of fiction. The relationship of these couples, is what is featured on most episodes, and what they center around. It is the reason women keep watching these types of shows, they interested in relationships. Dream Focus 10:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INTERESTING fail. DJ 10:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say keep the article because it was interesting, I said that a key factor in the show, was the relationships. As such, this most important component of these series, deserves mention. Dream Focus 19:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and nominate individually per DGG. Its impossible to check each of these articles for notability in such a small space of time. Nominate a few every week or so and give people enough time to make an informed decision. Jeni (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It will be interesting if soap editors ever learn how to reference. There are weekly soap magazines that have been running for years, dissecting this stuff down to the nth degree. There are probably enough sources out their for thousands of soap articles. Supercouples who are actually mentioned on google news (like a lot of these are) will be the least of the deletionists worries. We could have articles on fictional babies with 20 refs each. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • LOL Thanks for showing how little you know of "soap editors." Believe it or not, but some do you know how to reference. Rocksey (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you one? Have you found a way to search those mags online? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • LOL. Yes, Rocksey is one. I am one as well. Rocksey has created articles such as Dimitri Marick, Dimitri Marick and Erica Kane, and contributed heavily to the Erica Kane article (as well as other soap opera-related articles). She did not technically create the Dimitri Marick article, but she significantly improved it and got it to GA status. I have also contributed heavily to a lot of soap opera-related articles (though that is not my only field on Wikipedia). But most "soap opera editors" here do not source, as you say; they are not like Rocksey, TAnthony, AniMate and I (or Gungadin and Trampikey). We are a rare and small bunch, and we are getting to all these crappy soap opera articles when we can. Patience is needed. Yes, I slacked off in not fixing up all those other soap opera supercouple articles. But I have been busy with other stuff, especially off Wikipedia...and just look at those articles; it is going to take a lot of work, and they were all on my shoulders (most likely still are, which is why I am not against deletion of some of them until I or someone else cares enough to properly recreate them). I am not sure how notable soap opera babies would be, though, LOL, no matter 20 references (unless from reliable third-party sources focusing on those babies). Flyer22 (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and renominate individually. Edward321 (talk) 05:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Kennedy and Susan Smith I believe that this article should be deleted. The reason being both characters already have their own pages and the supercouple page is really just repeating what is already on these pages. --5 albert square (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Soap_Opera_%22supercouples%22&oldid=1142228074"