Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brangelina


 * 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 redirect to Supercouple. Davewild (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Brangelina

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Redundant article with considerable overlap between Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt's individual biographies. Nearly every essential detail from this article is already covered in the other two. Chase (talk &#124; contributions) 19:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. WP:NOTABLE.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability is not the issue here. This is a content fork that is not large enough in scope – and does not provide enough information not covered in the individuals' articles – to warrant a standalone article. Chase (talk &#124; contributions) 19:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments My first thought was that this should redirect to one or the other of the couple but that I could not say which one. The article does indeed seem like a fork from their individual articles rather than a focused article specifically about the media concoction which is "Brangelina". What might be changing my mind about the need to redirect is the Posh and Becks article. This shows a better way to approach the same sort of situation. Firstly, it is short and does not try to excessively duplicate the articles about the individual members of the couple. Secondly, it is clearly about the name as a media concoction:
 * "Posh and Becks is the media-inspired nickname for the English celebrity supercouple Victoria Beckham (née Adams, "Posh Spice" of the Spice Girls) and David Beckham (a footballer and former England team captain). Posh & Becks is also the name of a book by Andrew Morton." (emphasis mine).
 * If this gets kept I'd like to see it trimmed down along similar lines. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as a bloated content fork. Nothing that can't be covered in Pitt's article or Jolie's article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect, or just redirect: I recently discussed this article on my talk page with Tavix and NeilN. And like I stated there, it should redirect to Supercouple, like it used to. Bennifer also redirects there. TomKat used to redirect there, but currently redirects to the Tom Cruise article. And, yes, Bennifer and TomKat were Wikipedia articles at one point as well; see User:Flyer22/Bennifer, Articles for deletion/Bennifer and Talk:Relationship of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. I was a very different Wikipedia editor back in 2007 (a WP:Newbie), which is the only reason I requested to have the Bennifer article WP:Userfied. So, yeah, DanielRigal, the Supercouple article is a valid redirect option in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Supercouple per . As I addressed at 's talk page, I would have liked to see this article undergo a scope change. I wanted a section devoted to each child, so that the redirects could link to that individual family member and be able to discuss at length each child as they develop, similar to the Obama family article. However, I was talked off the ledge and agree that Angelina Jolie is the best place to hold that information and there really isn't anything that isn't already at Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, or Supercouple. (As an aside, I'm impressed with 's prediction that this would end up at AfD. Not even two months later, here we are.) -- Tavix ( talk ) 22:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as content fork —Мандичка YO 😜 23:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to Supercouple per, as this is a reasonable solution which may be implemented elsewhere. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Supercouple per 's sensible suggestion above. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect as although article has information and is neat and sourced, there's nothing outstandingly significant here. SwisterTwister   talk  21:55, 12 July 2015 (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.