Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliff Warner and Nina Cortlandt


 * 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. For future reference, please note that arguments based solely in notability by association have no basis in policy and may be (in this case, were) discounted. Though the nomination saw participation from relatively few editors, I do not believe that relisting will help to achieve a consensus, particularly given the length and depth of the discussion. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 06:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Cliff Warner and Nina Cortlandt

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - WIkipedia articles are not plot summaries and, as with the recently deleted Quint and Nola article, this is a character-specific plot summary for this so-called "supercouple." Otto4711 12:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Maybe redirect back to supercouple or All My Children to preserve the incoming links. Shalom Hello 13:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I am currently working on improving all of the soap couple articles. I need time. This isn't a so-called supercouple. This is a supercouple. I don't see how plot summaries are that big of an issue, when articles such as Anakin Skywalker exist.

I have stated this three times now...two of those times were with both the Nicholas Newman and Sharon Collins article...and the Victor Newman and Nikki Reed article, both in which were judged keep, because they are now re-written and now provide real-world impact from reliable sources. I was going to get around to improving this article, had this funny feeling that I should check on it, and, well, it's now nominated for deletion before I have even got around to fixing it up. While I, of course, understand the fact that articles on Wikipedia shouldn't only provide plot summaries, all of these soap opera couple articles will be worked on and formatted to fit Wikipedia policy, which is why WikiProject Soap Operas exists, and is why I ask other editors to hold off on nominating these soap opera couple articles for deletion. As for the Quint and Nola article, I was disappointed to see that deleted, because I could have fixed that article up before it was deleted. And while I'm not a fan of most of these soap opera supercouples, I may re-create that article and fix it up anyway. Going around and deleting these soap opera popular and or supercouple articles is not the answer. Clean-up is. Flyer22 02:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This article has been updated


 * I have updated this article, to where the plot summary is now re-worded in present tense, it's been cut down in length, and a Cultural impact section is now provided in this article, with real-world impact, and reliable sources.

I must point out that not too many soap opera couples are noted by Chicago Sun-Times, and this couple is. This couple is also noted as a supercouple by the soap opera media, the first telling factor of a soap opera supercouple. I ask that the closing administrator take all of this into account when closing this deletion debate, which I'm certain that the closing administrator of this debate will. This is truly a notable supercouple in soap opera history. And this article is in accordance with what WikiProject_Soap_Operas states of supercouples or other notable couples being featured on Wikipedia. Flyer22 14:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The one-sentence mention in the Sun-Times is trivial. The one-sentence mention in Soap Opera Digest is trivial. Soapdom.com is an "official" soap opera site so it's not an independent source and its mentions of the couple are trivial. The Victory Gardens Theatre website does not mention Taylor Miller in the context of the couple, only a brief mention of her character Nina and nothing about Cliff. The biography of American Speakers Bureau speaker Peter Bergman at the American Speakers Bureau website is not an independent source. These trivial and non-independent sources do not establish the notability of the couple nor do they establish that the couple has had any lasting cultural impact. The article remains a plot summary of the couple's history with some trivia tacked on in the hopes that people will confuse them with substance and give the article a pass. Otto4711 22:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep for now, because article looks good and editor(s) are attempting to improve it. Give 'em a chance to do so! --140.254.225.30 00:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Otto4711, I greatly disagree with your opinion of this article. No mention in Chicago Sun-Times is trivial, especially if it's a soap opera couple. A fact is that Chicago Sun-Times pointed out that Cliff and Nina are a notable couple, and by WikiProject_Soap_Operas, that is notability. Heck, by any standards, that is notability when it comes to a soap opera supercouple. '''The mention of Cliff and Nina being a supercouple by Soap Opera Digest is also not trivial. Soap Opera Digest doesn't just call any soap opera couple a supercouple. A couple has to be a supercouple first.''' And Soap Opera Digest calls Cliff and Nina a supercouple on more than one occasion. Soapdom.com is just more proof that Cliff and Nina are a highly notable couple, just as Bennifer once were, and they still are, because of the impact that they had. So are Cliff and Nina, because of the impact that they had as one of the world's most popular soap opera supercouples.

Victory Gardens Theatre not mentioning Taylor Miller in the context of the couple? The whole reason that Taylor Miller's character of Nina is even considered popular, and the bigger reason that people stop her on a street, screaming in giddy anticipation about meeting her is because of her character's romance with Cliff Warner. I see no such trivial matters in this couple obviously being notable, and I don't see how it can be disputed that this couple is a notable soap opera couple, a supercouple, in fact. And as for what you stated with this sentence..."The article remains a plot summary of the couple's history with some trivia tacked on in the hopes that people will confuse them with substance and give the article a pass"... People here are obviously smart enough to make up their own minds and won't be confused by any sort of manipulation that I am doing, because there is no manipulation on my part to confuse them. This article is not trivial; it's not a trivia section, and fans and the soap opera media determine which couples are supercouples. They determined that Cliff Warner and Nina Cortlandt are a supercouple, and Chicago Sun-Times took notice of this couple's popularity, even if it is just one sentence. This couple was also pointed out as being notable by Hollywood.com, which is an independent source. There is nothing huge in being wrong with this article's plot summary any longer, since it's the length or close to the length of some good articles in which have storyline plots on Wikipedia. There isn't much more to add to an article about a soap opera couple, but plot and Cultural impact, and a History section before the Storyline section, in which the History section discusses the creation of the characters, what the producers were going for upon creating the characters or romance, or both, and if I find such details from great sites in which discuss this, I'll make sure to add them to this article. Flyer22 02:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Noatability guidelines require that an article topic be the subject of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." A single sentence within an article that mentions the couple is in no way "significant coverage" even if the article is in the Sun-Times. Programs for regional theatre companies that mention one character but not the other or the couple do not constitute "significant coverage." An article on a decade in soap operas that mentions the couple does not constitute "significant coverage." Fans declaring a couple to be a "supercouple" does not constitute "significant coverage." The article remains a plot summary despite your attempts to tack on insignificant mentions as reliable sources. Come up with some sources which are specifically about the couple and their supposed cultural impact, otherwise this is plot plus trivia. Otto4711 03:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I know what Noatability guidelines states, which is clearly why this article...Victor Newman and Nikki Reed...was judged a keep, and isn't classified as just plot, plus trivia, they are a significant couple. I also know what WikiProject_Soap_Operas states, and the Cliff Warner and Nina Cortlandt article fits what they ask. This is a soap opera couple, and being so-called reported by multiple outside sources such as CNN News is usually not going to happen with a soap opera couple or soap opera supercouple, unless that couple is Luke and Laura, but that doesn't make them any less notable. A single sentence within an article that mentions the couple is significant coverage...when that couple is a soap opera couple being mentioned in Chicago Sun-Times. Fans declaring a couple to being a "supercouple" does constitute "significant coverage" when Soap Opera Digest also notes the couple's popularity and states that the couple is a supercouple, multiple times. Regardless, this couple is mentioned as a supercouple in more than one article, whether we state which article as reliable or not, but with mention of this couple being notable by Chicago Sun-Times, Hollywood.com (both independent sources), plus Soap Opera Digest proves this couple's notability, and it proves that this couple is not some ordinary soap opera couple, whether you feel that their Cultural impact section is trivia or not, which I state that it isn't. Flyer22 04:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, a single sentence out of a larger article is not "significant coverage." Fans calling a couple a supercouple does not constitute "significant coverage." A soap opera magazine mentioning the couple in passing, even if they mention the couple in passing more than once, does not constitute "significant coverage." The Wiki soap opera project may have its own internal criteria but those criteria do not trump Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Otto4711 06:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I'm sorry, but when it comes to a soap opera couple being mentioned in two independent sources, both outside of soap opera, Chicago Sun-Times and Hollywood.com, that is notability when it comes to a soap opera couple. Wiki Soap Opera Project has a certain criteria because it's only logical that soap opera characters aren't going to be featured in some heavy news article or celebrity magazine that often, if at all for most of them, thus when a couple is, it is certainly notable, which is why not all soap opera couples can have their own articles on Wikipedia.

Victor Newman and Nikki Reed didn't have to have extensive and or significant coverage on their love story in the mentions that were given to them by more than one independent reliable source. Just the fact that they were mentioned in more than one outside reliable source, The News & Advance, EW.com, Variety Magazine (and I'm sure many more), in what you call "in passsing" was enough to prove that couple's notability, thus I certainly don't see any extensive and or "significant coverage" needed as to having an article discussing that couple in its entirety.

In any case, Soap Opera Digest doesn't just mention Cliff and Nina in passing. They discuss the couple in more detail regardless.

Trivia sections mainly mention silly things, such as "This fictional character's favorite color is red"... Cultural impact sections more so cover a person, thing, character or couple's real-world impact, fictional or real, and that's what this article does. And if it's kept, it will certainly be improved further, at least with attempts. If's it's deleted, I can always re-create it later, and better improve it then.

Anyway, I need to go and fix up other soap opera couple articles, and some soap opera character articles, some of which like I did with the Bianca Montgomery character, which now provides a lot of real-world impact within her article, and will be further worked on as I edit articles here at Wikipedia. The Josh Madden article as well, both of these are certainly two highly notable characters, and I will have fun editing their articles for quite a while. It was/is interesting debating with you, Otto4711. Flyer22 07:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, I realize that you're trying desperately to save this article, but your desperation doesn't change the simple fact that the mere appearance of the names of the couple in an article does not constitute significant coverage, even if that article is in the Sun-Times. It may very well be that the Sun-Times doesn't mention soap opera characters very often, but that does mean that simply putting their names in a sentence means that the S-T has devoted significant coverage to them. I've been mentioned in articles in the Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune and any number of other papers. But I wasn't the subject of the articles in which I was mentioned and my being mentioned in them does not make them significant coverage of me or serve to establish me as notable by Wikipedia standards. The passing mentions in non-reliable sources don't constitute "cultural impact" no matter how hard you try to manufacture it. The Soap Opera Digest devotes one sentence to the couple out of a longer profile of the actor and doesn't even mention their last names. The soap opera project's standards do not under any circumstances supercede Wikipedia's so continuing to cite them is meaningless. And threatening to disrupt Wikipedia by recreating deleted content is very inappropriate. Otto4711 21:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 05:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Supercouple ¿SFGi Д nts!  ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 21:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Otto4711, I'm not desperate to save any article as of now, and your accusation that I'm threatening to disrupt Wikipedia by re-creating deleted material is totally off, almost if I were to accuse you of having a serious need to delete any and every soap opera article on Wikipedia, when most can be improved. Don't treat me as though I'm some vandal. I'm not. And Wikipedia editors are allowed to re-create deleted articles, if they better format the deleted articles upon re-creation. That's not a threat or disruption of any kind to Wikipedia. And your opinion that this couple is not notable, even though they've been cited by reliable outside sources, such as Chicago Sun-Times and Hollywood.com, even if it is in what you call as "passing" is something I obviously disagree with. A person being mentioned in passing in one of those sources is quite different than a soap opera couple being mentioned in one of those sources. And Soap Opera Digest doesn't have to have an entire article on a couple to mention that that couple is a supercouple. The fact remains that Soap Opera Digest calls them a supercouple, and Soap Opera Digest only calls soap opera couples who are supercouples...supercouples. But I certainly can provide a reference from Soap Opera Digest where they have an article on this couple. Either way, we don't agree on this article, as it is now, and I see no reason to keep debating this issue with you. Flyer22 22:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, you're the one who said "If's it's deleted, I can always re-create it later". Your words. And it's clear you're completely missing the point. The point is not whether or not Soap Opera Digest refers to them as a supercouple. The point is that the article is nothing more than a plot summary which is in violation of Wikipedia policy. The sources you cite do not establish the notability of the subject of the article. They do not establish any supposed "cultural impact" of the subject. Try actually reading WP:N and WP:RS. Notability requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources. A single sentence out of an article does not constitute "significant coverage." The website of a speakers bureau that the actor works for is not "independent." This honestly is not that complicated of a concept. Not sure why you're having so much trouble with it. Otto4711 23:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, my exact words, were "If it's deleted, I can always re-create it later, and better improve it then"... And that is not a threat of any kind, and is also no different than well-respected Wikipedian editors stating such a statement in deletion debates that maybe they will re-create an article later in the hopes of improving it then or that the article can be re-created later by another editor, hopefully better. As for your comment of ..."The website of a speakers bureau that the actor works for is not independent. This honestly is not that complicated of a concept. Not sure why you're having so much trouble with it"...don't talk down to me in a condescending way. I NEVER called the speakers bureau in which Peter Bergman works for independent. If we're going to condescend, I honestly don't know why you can't grasp the fact that a soap opera couple being mentioned in Chicago Sun-Times or Hollywood.com is most certainly notable for a soap opera couple.

Honestly, what you claim as needing to be "significant coverage" for a soap opera couple was not brought up by two excellent Wikipedian editors in the Victor Newman and Nikki Reed deletion debate, in which the fact was/is that Victor and Nikki were cited as a highly notable couple by extremely valid independent sources outside of the soap opera media, with none of those sources referenced in their article having provided an entire article on the couple. And I'm positive that those editors in that deletion debate knew what they were doing. Your solution to deleting an article because it has plot summary is off in my opinion. Wikipedia has nothing against plot summaries, it states that an article shouldn't just be about plot; that's what it's against. And this article isn't just about plot. And this article can always be improved. Again, we don't agree on this article as of now, and if you want to continue this back-and-forth between you and I, then so be it, but I'd rather not. Flyer22 00:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly, it doesn't really matter whether some other article exists or whether someone brought up any particular point in some other AFD. It is this article under discussion and the point has been brought up in this AFD. And, again, as much as you might wish it, the passing mentions of one or the other of the actors or of the couple do not establish notability. One sentence in a newspaper article is not notability. Two sentences on a website is not notability. Sorry if you feel like you're being talked down to here, but clearly no matter how it's explained to you you're not getting that passing mentions do not make notability. Notability requires that the source be about the subject, not that it just mention the subject. Again, notability requires that sources be about the subject. Absent the unsupported and frankly phony "cultural impact" section that is fabricated out of whole cloth, the article is plot, plot and more plot.  Otto4711 03:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop pointing me to policies such as other stuff exists. I'm quite aware of that policy. And it does matter whether someone brought up any particular point in some other AFD, because your "point" is off, Victor Newman and Nikki Reed were cited in more than one independent reliable source, and as User: EliminatorJR pointed out in that deletion debate upon his nomination of that article...."I'm certainly not saying every article in this category is unencyclopedic, but a huge amount of them are just plot summaries. If the unencyclopedic content can be cut right back, and the article sourced with real-world notability, then I'm quite happy to say keep - after all, AfD is for improvement, not just deletion"...that was the point, Victor and Nikki were proven notable, outside of the soap opera media even, and no article addressing the couple in its entirety is needed. In the same way that when an editor makes a statement such as Katie Holmes' favorite color is red, they have to find a reliable citation to validate that claim, not an entire article on Katie Holmes' favorite color being red.

Sorry, but it's not just a feeling that you were being condescending in this debate. You were and are being condescending in this so-called deletion debate. And if an article is about the impact soap opera couples had on the world, or about storylines in which had an impact on the world, and a couple is noted in that article, such as Victor Newman and Nikki Reed, then that is an article about that couple, that's what you're not geting. "Notability requires that the source be 'about' the couple"...and, yes, when an article is discussing storylines that changed the world and it mentions that fictional couple, then that is that article being about that fictional couple. Seriously, I don't need to debate this issue with you any longer. I don't need to be told that I'm not getting something or told to believe something in which you believe is what notability is, or pointed to some policy that I'm aware of, whether you believe that I'm aware of it or not. This debate between you and I is no longer as civil as it's supposed to be, and I do not wish to continue this tiresome round-whatever. Flyer22 11:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You keep saying that you don't feel the need to continue this, yet here you continue to be, letting fly paragraph after paragraph. Once again, it does not matter what anyone said about Victor and Nikki or any other couple. Victor and Nikki are not under discussion here. They're not, They're just not. And once again, a sentence in an article that mentions X does not make the article about X. It just doesn't. I agree that if this article were sourced to show real-world notability then it should stay, but it is not so sourced. Otto4711 14:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. A single sentence in an article does not and can not and never will make the article about that subject. A one sentence mention in an article is trivial. It is a passing mention. If even a single one of these had a section that discussed the couple that would be a different issue but none of these discuss the couple. Mentioning the couple is not the same as discussing the couple and it can only be your painfully obvious bias that prevents you from acknowledging that. This article is not sourced. It does not have a single source in it that meets WP:RS and that is about the subject of the couple, let alone three. The words "Cliff and Nina" in an article don't make the article about Cliff and Nina. An article about "storylines that impacted the world" (which none of the links in this article are, by the way) does not suddenly become about every storyline listed off in it. Otto4711 16:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is sourced, just not extensively, which can always be further improved. And I keep showing up here because you keep responding. A sentence in an article that mentions X does make that article about X if that article is discussing storylines that impacted the world or soap opera coupes that impacted the world, which can be added to this article. And telling me what is not sourced, or not notable, from checking your edit history, it seems that you were pointed to the same policy as to an article deemed not notable by most Wikipedian editors. Of course, not that that is the point of this article, as you'd point out, but obviously pointing me to policies when you yourself are pointed out as not taking them into account on occasion, is fruitless in my opinion, even more so because regardless of your opinion of this article, they are mentioned in three independent reliable sources as notable, passing or not. Again, we disagree as to this article as of now. Obviously. Flyer22 14:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)\


 * Did I say that the mentions of this couple by Chicago Sun-Times, and Hollywood.com, and Associated Content were an article about this couple? No. Although, the Associated Content article referenced in this article is specifically about the rise and fall of supercouples in soap opera, and notes Cliff and Nina, which makes that article about Cliff and Nina as well. And, yes, Associated Content, the second source in this article, has been cited as a reliable independent source in many great articles on Wikipedia. A single sentence in an article does, and can, and will make that article about that couple, if it's a topic of storylines that impacted the world or couples that impacted the world, and mentions that couple, which I was speaking of the Victor Newman and Nikki Reed article. I stated that the Cliff and Nina article could be improved. I have no painfully obvious bias that is preventing me from acknowledging anything that you claim. This is not some favorite and or even slightly favorite couple of mine. I'm 24 years old, and was not at all interested in the soap opera "All My Children" as a very young child. Not until at least age 10, with the villainous character of Todd Manning, did I become interested in soap operas, as I didn't even consider him just a soap opera character, and that character was definitely created some time after the Cliff and Nina mania. I could easily state that your bias of soap opera articles is what brought you to nominate this article for deletion, besides plot, and especially when it's obvious that regardless of what you think, this couple is a supercouple.

Anyway, I try to maintain good faith in what you claim as to this article, and we just are not on the same side when it comes to this article. No need for us to linger on our thoughts as to this article. Flyer22 16:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You have yet to provide a source that indicates that this storyline "impacted the world." And no, as hard as you might wish it, mentioning a thing in passing is not enough to make a source about that thing. Notability requires non-trivial coverage, and the mere mention of the couple's names is trivial. Otto4711 12:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have provided more than one source that proves that this couple is notable. And, as hard as you might wish that this couple is not notable, they are. The mere mention of this couple's name in a matter such as the rise and fall of supercouples in soap opera is not trivial. It proves that this couple is a supercouple. In fact, just this couple being called a supercouple in more than one instance proves that this couple is a supercouple, regardless of what you consider trivial or not. Not every soap opera couple is called a supercouple by the soap opera media, or is noted outside of it just for the heck of it. In the same way that the mere mention of Angelina Jolie's name on more than one top ten most beautiful women and or people in the world lists proves that she is notable as one of the most beautiful women and or people in the world, besides her other notable aspects. Flyer22 18:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Angelina Jolie may very well be a notably beautiful woman but her name on a published list of beautiful women does not in and of itself establish her notability. Sources have to provide substantial coverage to establish notability. Again, sources have to provide substantial coverage to establish notability. Once again, sources have to provide substantial coverage to establish notability. "Passing mentions" does not equal "substantial coverage." A source which mentions this couple in one sentence is not substantial coverage. Otto4711 19:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Stop twisting my words, Otto4711. I didn't state that Angelina Jolie's name on published lists of beautiful women in and of itself establishes her notability (although I feel that does, beside her other notable aspects). I stated that it establishes her notability as one of the world's most beautiful women and or beautiful people.

And, all sources on Wikipedia do not have to provide substantial coverage, and plenty of sources on Wikipedia in great articles do not. A source which mentions this couple in one sentence may not be substantial coverage, but it is notable when they are mentioned as a supercouple or important storyline in more than one independent reliable source. In the same way that Angelina Jolie being mentioned in more than one most beautiful women and or people lists establishes her notability as one of the world's most beautiful women and or people, Cliff and Nina being listed as a supercouple and or important storyline in more than one independent reliable source establishes that this couple is a supercouple. Also, the characters Cliff and Nina were merged into this article, thus deleting this article would be doing away with two notable characters as well, apart from being a part of this couple, in the show All My Children. Although, an editor here at Wikipedia could always re-create an article on the Cliff Warner character, as well as an article on the Nina Cortlandt character, it's a bit redundant, considering that most of their character history revolves around each other. Flyer22 20:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That you think a single source listing off beautiful women establishes notability of every single woman on the list merely further demonstrates your utter lack of understanding of notability guidelines. Otto4711 22:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Again twisting my words. I never stated that a source listing off beautiful women establishes notability of every single woman on that list. I stated that a woman (Angelina Jolie) being listed on several lists as a beautiful woman establishes her notability as a beautiful woman and or person. And the fact of being listed on so many lists as a beautiful woman and or person is quite notable of that person. The fact that you keep twisting my words proves your lack of understanding of how not to twist words. Flyer22 22:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, we don't need to circle in this tiresome debate any longer. We don't need to condescend to each other. We've basically stated everything that we can state, more than once. That is just over, basically, at this point, even if this debate is still open at this very moment. You've stated your feelings, I've stated mine. We really don't have any reason to state the same things over and over again, whether it's a condescending remark of how the other doesn't understand a Wikipedia guideline and that we want that other one to know it or not. I suggest we stop this back-and-forth between you and I in this debate. We know where each other stand. Flyer22 23:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep appeared in a notable program, thus are notable Giggy  UCP 04:29, 10 July 2007 (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.