Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bennifer


 * 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, without prejudice to creating a redirect to the appropriate section of the Jennifer Lopez or Ben Affleck biography. As the article is about the relationship between the actors and only passingly about the term "Bennifer" itself, any encyclopedic treatment of the relationship can be included within one or both of the actors' articles. While the relationship is arguably notable (depending on the weight one gives the sources), our notability guidelines do not require that all notable topics receive their own article when it is possible that a broader article – e.g. the actor bio(s) – can adequately cover the topic as part of its broader treatment of the subject. Several editors participating in the discussion have proposed including any relevant information in the actors' bios instead of having a standalone article, and no argument appears to have been made to explain why that proposal would be either a bad idea or against policy. 28bytes (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Bennifer

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Delete - Following the deletion of Personal life of Jennifer Lopez (AfD), I feel that this article should be deleted for similar reasons. The WP:INDISCRIMINATE details of this piece read like a WP:TABLOID or WP:FANCRUFT. Moreover, this violates one of the fundamental principals of WP:BLP - "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid" - and is full of WP:BLPGOSSIP. The article contains next to no out-of-universe commentary from verifiable or reliable independent sources. At the very most, transwiki to Wiktionary. SplashScreen (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To the closing administrator - please note that User:Status, the article's creator, originally !voted to merge and redirect the article but has since removed his comments and changed his position. SplashScreen (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that there is actually no !vote from me located in this article. I decided to neither !vote keep, merge or delete. It should also be noted that this user seems to like nominating articles I create for deletion, and doing so without notification.  Statυs (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Except there was, when you originally !voted to merge and redirect the article . SplashScreen (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Article violates WP:BLP of Jennifer Lopez. Lopez would be critical of wikipedia based on this article. --Artene50 (talk) 02:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 16:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Jennifer Lopez. Having an article on this relationship is tabloidesque and not encyclopedic, but it could be a search term. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Even a Lifetime movie about them may be more notable than the real-life relationship itself. Also, the whole article speaks only real-life events that made neither significance nor impact. --George Ho (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete covered better in their individual articles. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Not every celebrity relationship is notable, but this one is probably the most noteworthy coupling I can imagine, in part for popularizing this particular meme in pop culture of the combined name, but also just because it has been so heavily-ingrained into popular culture.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you, which is why I began the article in the first place.  Statυs (talk) 06:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that Fox News' assertion is entirely wrong; the trend-setting celebrity portmanteau was Pickfair. And The Devil's Advocate's "popular culture" argument breaks WP:LOCALFAME and WP:INTHENEWS. SplashScreen (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Their relationship was notable and affected their careers, both in negative way I guess. However, I still think this article has enough information to stand of its own.—  Tomica    (talk)  12:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:VALINFO and WP:ASSERTN? SplashScreen (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate, as I am not seeing Tomica's comment being in violation of either of those.  Statυs (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * " I still think this article has enough information to stand of its own" - WP:VALINFO violation. "Their relationship was notable and affected their careers" - WP:ASSERTN violation. SplashScreen (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Where's the elaboration I asked for?  Statυs (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is nothing else for me to elaborate on. You were confused as to why Tomica's arguments broke these two policies (maybe you didn't read them?), so I presented relevent quotations which match Tomica's argument and illustrate why he has fallen foul of these policies. Just what do you expect to see from a Torquay hotel bedroom window? SplashScreen (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Relinking and quoting what the user said again isn't elaboration. Show me in each policy where those comments are a violation.  Statυs (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? I think that should be clear for everybody else. SplashScreen (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Because I asked you for it. When linking to polices, you should specify how exactly it is against policy. It is not a requirement, but surely if a user asks you to do so, you should.  Statυs (talk) 00:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I think this is a good example of a topic which seems 'notable' at the time, but ultimately fails to demonstrate long-term notability. We're talking about an 18-month romance here, with few to no lasting consequences. I don't think that's a subject deserving of its own article. There are also BLP issues here: I'm not entirely comfortable with articles which focus on the personal lives of living celebrities and their failed relationships. I'd be fine with (say) Relationship of Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor, since they're both dead, but one like this is more problematic. Robofish (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See my comment above. It did have a lasting effect on popular culture, and that's just the most obvious effect.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. When I first saw this article existed, I thought it might be justified as the (possible) origin of the celebrity-couple-portmanteau meme. But the article isn't about the meme; it's just an exhaustive retelling of every step of the relationship, offering very little argument about why anyone today should care about any of it. A briefer summation should be (and probably already is) included in Affleck's and Lopez's respective articles. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That is an argument for improving the article, not deleting it.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not if there aren't multiple verifiable, reliable or independent sources regarding the "origin of the celebrity-couple-portmanteau meme". SplashScreen (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm...   Statυs  (talk) 02:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So the first article is a trivial mention of just one sentence about "Bennifer" and the second is another quick sentence followed by two quotes of what two non-notable randoms think of the duo. Not forgetting that both sources fail WP:V as Pickfair was where this trend started. So, how do these sources guarantee that the article is notable? SplashScreen (talk) 08:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You asked for a verifiable, reliable or independent source stating that "Bennifer" was the origin of the celebrity couple name. I gave you it. You never asked for an in-dept essay about it.  Statυs (talk) 09:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well you have not provided sources that match that description. SplashScreen (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Huffington Post and Fox News are not verifiable, reliable or independent? News to me.  Statυs (talk) 09:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well anyone with the minimum knowledge of Western culture would know that Fox News is EXTREMELY unreliable, but both sources are unreliable in this case as the information they provide fails WP:V. SplashScreen (talk) 09:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (In response to The Devil's Advocate) No, I don't agree that we should keep this article which is entirely about a non-notable topic, on the basis that if it were completely rewritten with an entirely different focus, that new focus might justify keeping that new and entirely different article. If you, or anyone else, would like to write an article about "Bennifer" that justifies the topic's notability, deleting this currently-existing article should prevent absolutely no barrier to doing that. Theoldsparkle (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We already have sources and material to work with here. Deleting this would require editors to go back and find all the sources and write all the material. Here we can make adjustments and review sources to more quickly remedy the issues.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are lots of news stories about Bennifer: It's official: Bennifer is no more, Intimates React to Bennifer Breakup, Bennifer: A Five-Year Anniversary Tribute, etc. The article may Benni(fer)fit from a rewrite, but the term is unquestionably notable. It won't wither and die (much as many of us would like it to). Clarityfiend (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Tabloid and celebrity gossip reports of a relationship does not mean that said partnership should have its own Wikipedia article. SplashScreen (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources which are pointed by the user are perfectly reliable per the Wikipedia policy. —  Tomica    (talk)  23:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That may be so, but what value do they add? How will they be used to erase all the many problems that myself and other editors have raised? This is pure WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Ben Affleck is notable, Jennifer Lopez is notable. Their relationship is not. SplashScreen (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously that is your personal opinion, however not all think like you here. And I don't see that editors that voted for deletion of the article raised some major issues. It is just in my opinion. —  Tomica    (talk)  23:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well who else's opinion would it be? SplashScreen (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Opinion of all the users, both, who think it should be kept and deleted. —  Tomica    (talk)  23:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: As Clarity and Devil both stated, the article is in need of a face lift. But that is not a reason to delete an article. The nominator should also read WP:BEFORE prior to nominating articles, which is required of him.  Statυs (talk)
 * Keep: the topic is of extreme notability. The couple—not only were extremely influential and notable during their run—popularized the combination of names for other couples, and sort of became the "start of something" if you get what i mean. Most points mentioned are very important and while this article isn't perfect it most certainly should not be deleted. − Soap  Jar 14:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * When are we going to have a proper, policy-led debate on the state of articles such as this without WP:WEASEL phrases like " were extremely influential and notable during their run"? SplashScreen (talk) 06:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Another example of a blip on the celebrity radar screen whose content should be (but probably already is) in the articles of the two elements of this amalgamate. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.