Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional supercouples


 * 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   keep. ‑Scottywong | babble _ 22:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

List of fictional supercouples

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is just an WP:OR page, pure and simple. And don't be swayed by the supposed references. For one thing, magazine writers will use whatever term they think will sell their product. (Not to mention the suggestion that "super"heroes are part of "super"couples.) This appellation really needs some actual academic scholarship to reliably source the term. I won't dispute that the articles that are actually on couples who may be known as "supercouples" (listed under List of fictional supercouples), may be fairly called this, and maybe a few night time soap stars from radio and/or television. But the rest, not so much. (And the lack of radio examples on the page would seem to confirm my concerns.) - jc37 03:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See also Articles for deletion/List of supercouples. - jc37 03:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as nominator. Keeping will just retain it as a constant OR magnet. - jc37 03:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep We have a definition of Supercouple, and it seems to be a widely used term. It should be possible to edit the page without original research if references are provided, even if the references aren't to peer-reviewed journals.  Being an "OR-magnet" isn't a valid reason for deletion - plenty of legitimate topics from general relativity downwards attract OR. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, Supercouple appears to be a decent list page in its own right, giving a nice overview of the term and those it has been applied to. The nommed list page would seem to be merely duplicative of that page. And nowhere near as clear or useful to our readers. - jc37 21:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment That the list is rife with notices that reliable sources are used bodes ill for it. Things that are truly notable rarely tend to need to say so--or try to say so. Jclemens (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is no WP:OR. Plain and simple. You should be swayed by the supposed references, because they aren't supposed. Yep, magazine writers will throw around the term "supercouple" (the intro notes that), but that does not diminish the reality that the term is validly applied to many couples. Further, this list is about fictional supercouples, so there aren't going to be any "radio examples" (like the nominator wishes), and it mostly features soap opera supercouples. It mostly features soap opera supercouples because the term is most prevalent in reference to soap opera characters and high-profile celebrities. It originated in the soap opera medium, where there does exist actual academic scholarship (or there wouldn't even be a supercouple article), and has only started to expand in other areas. And when used to refer soap opera couples, it is usually used correctly. As for superheroes being part of supercouples, they are if the sources say they are. What the nominator fails to grasp is that we go by WP:Verifiability here at Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if you think a couple is or isn't a supercouple. It matters if the sources call them one. We don't delete articles that are well-sourced because we don't agree with what sources say and because an article is a constant OR magnet. If that were the case (and, yes, I'm going to use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because it can be used properly), other lists such as Honorific nicknames in popular music would have been deleted; gooodness knows people kept trying to get it deleted. The Supercouple article is not a list page. It is a page defining and discussing the evolution of the term. It used to have some version of this list in the article and was split out, per WP:SPINOUT and Writing about fiction. And this list has been well-maintained since 2008. The only reason it has notices that reliable sources are used, as Jclemens points out, is because IP editors and newbie editors didn't seem to grasp that reliable sources are needed before they add a couple to this list and because these notes weren't having as much of an effect as hidden notes. The point is they don't serve to say "Please don't delete me, I'm reliably-sourced." They serve to say "You want a couple added? Then add them with a reliable source." 31.193.133.160 (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and most of the soap opera couples in the see also section aren't as notable as the ones on the main list. That's why they're in the see also section (no sources found calling them supercouples or at least not sufficient sources). 31.193.133.160 (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There were indeed soaps on the radio, long before they appeared on, what was then, this new television thingamajig...
 * So while the term "supercouple" may have supposedly premiered in the 80s, the concept existed long before then, as even noted in the supercouple article. - jc37 06:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As you know, the term supercouple wasn't coined until Luke and Laura. Read about why that is. It's in the scholarly sources, in addition to entertainment sources. Most of the couples termed supercouples are ones who came after the term was coined. The concept of supercouple did not exist before Luke and Laura. That is because no soap opera couple achieved the level of fame/popularity that Luke and Laura did, aside from British soap opera couple. "Dirty" Den and Angie Watts, whose famous divorce episode happened five years after Luke and Laura's famous wedding. Doug Williams and Julie Olson, who were a couple before Luke and Laura, came close to Luke and Laura's fame, but not to the level where the press felt the need to invent the term supercouple. Besides, deleting an article partially because it doesn't include couples you feel should be on the list is not a valid argument for deletion. Some lists, plenty on Wikipedia, will never be complete because a new addition is always being added or waiting to be added. If there are radio couples you feel should be on the list, then look for reliable sources calling them supercouples. Some of the sources on this list explain why these couples are supercouples. It's not just about throwing the term around willy-nilly. 31.193.133.159 (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You can't have it both ways. Either it's about the concept, and examples from prior to L&L may be included, or it's only about the explicitly applied term, and they can't. - jc37 00:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to have it both ways. I'm saying how it is. The Supercouple article is about both the term and concept. These things go hand in hand. The term/concept didn't exist before Luke and Laura. The term was thrown on them and the concept was created around their popularity and how storylines were used for their romance. The concept slowly expanded into other genres. A lot of things existed before a term/concept was applied to them. And once the term/concept was created, people said "Hey, it applies to these things even though there wasn't a term/concept for them back then." Widly popular couples existed before Luke and Laura, yes. But they weren't called supercouples back then. Some sources call them supercouples now because there is finally a term for what those couples are. 31.193.133.160 (talk) 04:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're clearly not understanding me. Maybe you would understand better if I italicised and bolded the "only". But unfortunately I'm doubting it. I sincerely am thinking that you have no interest in even trying to understand what I'm saying at all. Shrugs. C'est la vie. - jc37 04:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand you fine. Well, maybe not that fine because, in my opinion, your arguments are lacking sense. I believe you aren't understanding me. And aren't you supposed to be an administrator? Cut it out with the insults and grow up. 31.193.133.160 (talk) 05:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between insulting someone, and observing that they don't seem to have any interest in listening (possibly because they have a POV to push...) But I'll continue to waste my time attempting, because, hope beyond hope, you may actually listen to what I am saying rather than what you want to think I'm saying... - jc37 06:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You were using insults and you're still being condescending. You can hide behind your administrative title and false need to guide the poor, misguided IP all you like, but you have issued insults and as much of a POV as you accuse me of having. And I fired back. Disagreeing with someone doesn't mean that they aren't listening. If I'm not listening, you are just as guilty of not listening. You aren't even trying to understand the fault in your arguments. Go on, look at your initial rationales for deletion and even subsequent ones. And you wonder why people (yes, people, not just me) see your arguments as only being opinionated? They are not rooted in Wikipedia guidelines or policy. So do spare yourself trying to convince me and others of how right you are. I'm not trying to convince you or others of anything. I am only arguing what I find to be of fault in the deletion rationales. 31.193.133.159 (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

How are my and jc37's arguments lacking sense? And please, read WP:CIVIL while you can because accusing someone for insults without proof can be troubling. --George Ho (talk) 02:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I explained how your and jc37's arguments lack sense. You disagree. You are allowed to. But it's not against WP:CIVIL to say another person's rationale lacks sense. I didn't say "lack sense" anyway. I said "makes no sense," meaning none at all. And I didn't accuse jc37 of insults without proof. The proof is in this debate. You don't see that, or rather pretend that you don't see that, then that's on you. Not my problem. Don't ask me to point out the insults either. 31.193.133.159 (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete both because of the WP:OR problems that will inevitably follow, and because lists like this are utterly pointless dead air. This is a precious notion that is the province of fan magazines and entertainment shows, not a serious subject for an encyclopedia.  The term "supercouple" has no practical meaning, and that we have a definition is far from a compelling argument for this article.  Rather, it's evidence we're already headed down a slippery slope into the realm of fan publishing.  Least compelling is the argument about using sources that call couples "supercouples."  We're trusting puff publications to set the standard for content in an encyclopedia?  Even if they do rise to the level of WP:RS, and I doubt many do, where is the quality control?  This is beneath us. --Drmargi (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that I should point out again that we don't delete articles because they have the possibility of attracting WP:OR. You assert the "WP:OR problems that will inevitably follow," but this disregards that this list has existed since 2008 with those WP:OR problems being taken care of every time and that "plenty of legitimate topics from general relativity downwards attract OR," like Colapeninsula said a little higher. There isn't a couple on this list lacking a source or reliable source. And, okay, "supercouple" is a subjective term, especially when in reference to non-soap opera couples. But so what? Anti-hero is a subjective term too, and yet we have List of fictional antiheroes. We have lists on various subjective terms, like Honorific nicknames in popular music, pointed out above. Criticizing the sources for not being mostly scholarly is ridiculous. This is a popular culture topic. It's just fine and dandy to use popular culture sources to source popular culture topics. As a television editor (I checked your contributions), you know this. Or at least you should. You don't see scholarly sources being needed for most television and film articles on Wikipedia, or anywhere else. Even so, this topic does have scholarly sources. Okay, most of those pertain to soap opera couples, but that is no reason to delete this list. If anything, it's more of a reason to retitle it as "List of soap opera supercouples." I don't see a thing that is "[l]east compelling" about "using sources that call couples 'supercouples.'" That's called following Wikipedia's WP:Verifiability policy and WP:Reliable sources guideline. I don't understand how having a list on fictional supercouples or an article documenting the term (a term covered in scholarly and popular press) is going "down a slippery slope into the realm of fan publishing" and is "beneath us." There is no "fan publishing" here. Sources included are authoritative soap opera magazines, high profile entertainment magazines such as Entertainment Weekly, People, etc., which means it's not like we're using blogs here or simply gossip trash. Covering this material is no more beneath us than covering the many other popular culture topics included on Wikipedia. Unless you happen to object to those too. 31.193.133.159 (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Pending - Everyone has a point. Even with inline citations, there is no way that they are supercouples. Nonetheless, this list must abandon table format and then must go for explains of how and why a source calls one couple a supercouple. One thing for sure: this list should not consist of only plot; see List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters and List of Friends characters. --George Ho (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Even with inline citations, there is no way that they are supercouples." So we should go off your opinion that none of these couples are supercouples, instead of the reliable sources calling them such and when it's obvious that some of the couples are supercouples? I see. So this AfD is all about opinion and throwing Wikipedia rationales, policies and guidelines out the window. 31.193.133.159 (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I call these sources, including soap-related ones, that call couples "supercouples" opinionated. What if another source opposes a couple as a supercouple? Also, the article doesn't say why else the couple is a "supercouple". --George Ho (talk) 07:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I said above that the term supercouple is subjective, but I also noted how it's not always subjective, especially when relating to soap opera couples. You wouldn't argue that Luke and Laura are a supercouple, now would you? I also noted how a lot of terms are subjective and that we still have articles on those terms and list characters under those terms. There are a lot of people who don't see eye to eye on whether or not a couple is star-crossed, for example, but we still list couples as star-crossed based on reliable sources. We follow reliable sources here at Wikipedia. That's what we're supposed to be doing for this AfD debate. If a reliable source ever disputed a couple as a supercouple, then that could be noted on the list. On this list's talk page, having a notes field was broached. If you look at List of fictional antiheroes, its literature section has a notes field. As for this article, the intro does say why some of these couples are supercouples and some of the sources discuss why some of these couples are supercouples. It's not all about just calling a couple a supercouple and leaving it at that. 31.193.133.159 (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Keep with caveats - see below. This is not a serious encyclopaedic subject. As Drmargi says, we cannot trust gossip columns and fan magazines to accurately determine if a given fictional couple is "super" or not. Their use of the word "supercouple" has more to do with style and character of prose than anything factual. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 22:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Other than you, who says it's not a serious encyclopedic topic? Who says that a serious encyclopedic topic can't be a topic covering a popular culture term? Other aticles, some of which are WP:GA or WP:FA, disagree with you. And I'll reaffirm that I don't need to be pointed to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, because this is exactly when it should be used. The rationales for deletion in this AfD make no sense: "Ooh, this article will attract WP:OR, so let's delete it. Ooh, we should delete it because I wouldn't call some of these couples supercouples, and therfore the term is too subjective to have a list, or maybe even an article, on." Geesh. One place this term hasn't been too subjective is soap opera. There are undisputed soap opera supercouples like Luke and Laura, and the basis of calling such couples supercouples is not about "style and character of prose than anything factual." 31.193.133.159 (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How about moving it to somewhere that allows original research, like TV Tropes? That might be better than deleting it outright. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How about following the reliable sources, like Wikipedia is generally supposed to do, since there is no WP:Original research in the article? I've read WP:Original research and what you're prescribing as WP:Original research is not present in this article. That's why two editors have said it can attract OR, not that it's filled with OR. Just checking the sources for any of the couples listed shows that there is no original research in the article. A better suggestion would be retitling the article as List of soap opera supercouples, like I said before, since the term is more accurately used to describe extremely popular soap opera couples (and extremely popular celebrity couples), and removing the other genres. 31.193.133.159 (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This AfD is becoming quite controversial, so let me outline my objections in more detail, lest my rationale be confused with one of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It has been said in this discussion that the nomination and the delete !votes are based only on personal opinion. I won't speak for others, but in my case I was basing my argument on policy - specifically, that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. The basic problem is that supercouple is a subjective term. Let's think about what it takes for a given couple to be thought of as a "supercouple". We have a definition in supercouple, and various people have put forward definitions in other sources, but all of these definitions are subjective. If we try and think of ways of defining a "supercouple" based on facts - maybe number of viewers, length of relationship, number of breakups, etc. - none of them quite work. If anyone can think of any objective criteria to define "supercouple", then I will be happy to change my mind, but that is not what I'm reading from the article and the sources. So how do our sources determine which couples are "supercouples"? Well, we don't know. Popularity is one factor, of course, and degree of intrigue is another, but in the end whenever sources call a couple a "supercouple", they are expressing an opinion. There is a lot of talk of using reliable sources to determine which couples are "supercouples", but let us remember the reason we use reliable sources to determine article content in the first place. We use reliable sources because they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. (Among other reasons we use them, of course.) By using sources that check their facts, the theory goes, hopefully the material that we put into Wikipedia will also be factually accurate. This breaks down when we get to opinions, though. If we repeat an opinion from a source as a fact, then we are no longer being factually accurate in our articles - we are making a claim. This claim might be accurate, or it might not be - it is sometimes difficult, or even impossible, to tell. This is not a problem in the supercouple article, as we can simply convert any opinions into facts by attributing them to their sources. In the supercouple article, we can simply say that supercouple is a vague term, list all the different definitions in the sources, and state which sources say which couples are supercouples. We cannot do this in the list of fictional supercouples, however. We are constrained by the format to declare, in Wikipedia's voice, that all the couples in the list are supercouples. In other words, the whole list is declaring opinion as fact, and is therefore in violation of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and by extension WP:NOT. I don't think that this is a problem that can be fixed by editing. —  Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 15:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This AfD is not becoming quite controversial, in my opinion. It's following the route of most other AfDs, heated arguments for keep or delete. I don't see how anything in here is OR just because some of the information is relying on personal opinion. As I said, many terms are subjective, but we still have articles on those terms and we still assign those terms to fictional characters and people on Wikipedia. If that's what you classify as WP:OR, then most of what is in articles like The Beatles, Michael Jackson, Madonna, Mariah Carey, etc., when speaking of their legacy and impact, is WP:OR. Some of it is persoanl opinion, no doubt about that, but not all of it is. That's also how it is for the term supercouple. The words "is subjective" keep being used, as though that applies to every couple labeled a supercouple. You, Mr. Stradivarius, have already said that may not be the case for all couples. If it was, there would be reliable sources disputing the most well-known American soap opera supercouples as supercouples, but there aren't. The term has been well-defined in soap opera, which is why so many soap opera couples from the late 90s and 2000s/2010s aren't considered supercouples by the vast majority of the American soap opera viewers. Supercouple goes over this. One definition of supercouple that has been consistent is that it's a widly popular couple. I don't know what you mean by "various people have put forward definitions in other sources"; I haven't seen that at all aside from celebrity couples, and the sources still describe celebrity supercouples as extremely popular or very wealthy couples, or both. Is a supercouple an unpopular couple? Not usually. Not unless it's an unpopular couple that has achieved fame. So the term is not very subjective in that respect. You said "maybe number of viewers, length of relationship, number of breakups, etc." and "popularity is one factor, of course, and degree of intrigue is another," but that is the formula for a soap opera supercouple. It isn't just one thing. It's all of those things. Furthermore, it's not up to us to say what a supercouple is or isn't. It's up to the reliable sources, even if opinion, which is what I keep saying. WP:Verifiability is very clear on that. People should already expect that a term like "supercouple" can be subjective, and the intro points it out for those who spare time to read it. So the way you and others have been arguing to delete this list is, in my opinion, to say we might as well delete Supercouple too. And if that's the case (I know that it isn't, I'm just saying), then we should go ahead and delete Antihero, since it isn't defined in just one way, Star-crossed since it has more than one definition and some people disagree with what is and isn't star-crossed, and Supermodel since it's defined in more than one way and people disagree on who is and isn't a supermodel. You said factuality "breaks down when we get to opinions. ... If we repeat an opinion from a source as a fact, then we are no longer being factually accurate in our articles - we are making a claim. This claim might be accurate, or it might not be - it is sometimes difficult, or even impossible, to tell. This is not a problem in the supercouple article, as we can simply convert any opinions into facts by attributing them to their sources. ... We cannot do this in the list of fictional supercouples, however." But we can do that. WP:LIST shows ways that we can, such as having a notes field to say why each couple is considered a supercouple. This (having a notes field) was brought up on the list talk page. And if that's not good enough, and since no one has responded to my suggestion to rename the list as List of soap opera supercouples, how about renaming it as List of fictional couples considered supercouples? This is similar to List of films considered the best and List of films considered the worst. Although I don't understand how adding these qualifiers is any different than the current title, since it should be clear to readers already that when we say "Supercouple," "Best film," "Greatest song," "Best athlete," the terms are being used subjectively (less so for supercouple because of the reasons I've already given). 31.193.133.159 (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have been thinking more about this list, and I have come up with a way that we can keep it, and solve the original research problems that I outlined above. (My apologies to the IP, and to the others who disagreed with my "not a serious encyclopaedic subject" claim. That was a hasty claim, and I should have investigated the sources more before I made it.) As I said above, to eliminate all original research from the list, we need to attribute all the claims of "supercouple" to their sources. To do this properly, we really need to convert this list to prose, so I think that a caveat to keeping the article must be that it drop the table format. Also, we need a way to make sure that this list doesn't include every single couple that has been described off-handedly as a "supercouple" in fan magazines, etc. This is the part that I was missing before, but I really should have thought of it sooner. We should simply limit the list to couples with their own articles, such as Cliff and Nina, Greg and Jenny, etc. Having the caveat that the couples must pass the general notability guidline is the only realistic way I can think to make an objective criterion for inclusion. Implementing these two caveats will change the list drastically, and it may not be that much more work to build it up again from scratch as it would to convert it from its present state. Still, I am no longer of the opinion that the problems with the list cannot be fixed by editing, so deletion probably isn't appropriate. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I see no reason to delete. Soap Opera Digest and other publications don't just list a supercouple for the sake of being a supercouple. They are usually long-standing couples from their said series or have made a cultural impact through their series, etc. I see no reason to delete such article. I contest the proposition of this deletion. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 22:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know. Luke and Laura are a couple, but I wouldn't call them supercouple just because fans say so, reviewers say so, and this couple titillated viewers in the past with controversial decisions that shocked them. In fact, that would be either original research or biased. If someone favors or opposes calling them a supercouple, I must cite people's opinions in Reception.
 * Maybe "List of fictional supercouples", in spite of its simplicity, is not accurate title; how about "List of couples that are called supercouples"? ...Wait, maybe move should be requested after AFD is over. --George Ho (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not just fans calling Luke and Laura a supercouple. Are you purposely being antagonistic right now? You know why Luke and Laura are called a supercouple, why they are credited with having defined the term. Their wedding recorded the highest-ever ratings for an American daytime drama, with 30 million people tuning in to watch. Most prime time shows weren't even getting those kind of ratings, and most aren't getting those ratings today either. Elizabeth Taylor made a cameo appearance during the wedding, and Princess Diana reportedly sent champagne. The couple were featured on the covers of People and Newsweek and credited with having brought "legitimacy to daytime serials" and its fans by crossing boundaries and becoming celebrities in the mainstream media. That's why they are a supercouple and are credited with defining the term. The other couples called supercouples are not just called supercouples because of the fans either. It's whether newspapers and/or entertainment magazines and sites also name them supercouples. Or else this list wouldn't exist. As for your alternative title suggestion, not good. That can be said for any list dealing with terms that can be subjective. Good grief. 31.193.133.159 (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Even a "subjective" argument to me doesn't hold water. That doesn't convince me why this list must be kept. The sources say that they are supercouple", yet, when the list is written as if couples were defined, instead of honoured or criticized, as "supercouples", that still grounds for questioning the execution of this list and the credibility of sources. As I said, there must be sources that says "Luke and Laura" do not fit the real definition of a supercouple, but at least there are sources that say Luke and Laure fit, otherwise. Boy, you do too many replies; why won't you ease your mind and then come up with a calmer yet stronger argument that would convince me to vote keep. By the way, there is a Soap Opera Digest article that picked the 20-years-later LaL rape storyline as the Best Storyline of 1998. --George Ho (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC
 * No, my arguments are not subjective. None of the keep arguments thus far are subjective. Only the delete arguments are. Your arguments make no sense. It's titled list of fictional supercouples because they are fictional, reliable sources say they are supercouples, and this is a list, just like sources say the characters listed on List of fictional antiheroes are antiheroes. It doesn't matter if you question whether (or disagree with) some of these couples or characters being called supercouples or anti-heroes. It doesn't matter that these terms can be subjective. Wikipedia has no policy against having articles on terms that can be subjective or against assigning such terms to characters or people. As long as they are supported by multiple, reliable third-party sources and follow the other guidelines, it's allowed. I repeat that we defer to reliable sources on Wikipedia. That's what you don't seem to understand. You link to WP:Verifiability, when you and the other delete arguers need to read over it. There are no reliable sources saying that Luke and Laura do not fit the real definition of a supercouple. That's why I say you're being antagonistic. Every reliable source, including scholarly sources, say Luke and Laura defined the term. I don't do "too many replies." I'm challening arguments using Wikipedia policies and guidelines, like you are supposed to be doing. I'm replying to anyone who has replied to me. I don't need to ease my mind and be calmer. I am calm. Am I screaming at you? No. You are the one who doesn't seem calm, with your condescending reply to me. As for convincing you to change your argument to "keep," no one can. Everyone familiar with soap opera topics on Wikipedia knows you get giddy over deleting any soap opera-related article. My arguments are stronger than yours because they're based in Wikipedia policies, guidelines and precedent. And I don't see what picking "the 20-years-later LaL rape storyline as the Best Storyline of 1998" has to do with this debate. Just more proof that the rape is a part of what made Luke and Laura so famous. 31.193.133.159 (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Just one question without going non-sensical or antagonistic or anything: why would these sources call Luke and Laura a supercouple? Are they meant-to-be? Dysfunctional? Not-meant-to-be-but-cute? --George Ho (talk) 04:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Those questions make absolutely no sense, George. So you failed in trying not to sound non-sensical. 31.193.133.160 (talk) 05:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll rephrase, unless you know what I'm saying: Why do critics call Luke and Laura a "supercouple"? --George Ho (talk) 05:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I already answered that question. And their article obviously answers it if you need a more in-depth explanation. I'd truly prefer that you just don't ask me any more questions. 31.193.133.160 (talk) 05:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I read the introduction, and the intro is a mere long explanation of "I say a couple is a supercouple, so they are a supercouple because I say so". Am I missing something? --George Ho (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't even know what you are talking about. The intro of the list, the Supercouple article and the Luke and Laura article are basing what supercouples are on reliable sources. It isn't about what one editor believes; that would be WP:OR. This is what I mean about you not responding to me anymore. You miss a lot of things. Your processing things in discussions has been one of the things you've been criticized for before. 31.193.133.159 (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you think these sources are reliable? ...Oops... I just asked a question. I hope I've not hurt you, have I? --George Ho (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You have hurt me. My brain. Because you keep asking stupid questions. They are reliable because WP:Reliable sources say so. If you think scholarly sources, high-profile newspapers and magazines, popular soap opera magazines and entertainment websites with fact-checking staffs are unreliable for a list of fictional supercouples, then you really shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. 31.193.133.159 (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Note - None of the above have seemed to address the fact that this list page is merely a duplicate (and a poor one at that) of Supercouple. - jc37 03:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: I did address this. This list is not a duplicate of the Supercouple article, so I don't know how Jc37 can make that assertion. I said: "The Supercouple article is not a list page. It is a page defining and discussing the evolution of the term. It used to have some version of this list in the article and was split out, per WP:SPINOUT and Writing about fiction. And this list has been well-maintained since 2008." This is a list. The Supercouple article is an actual article, and most of the couples here aren't even mentioned there. 31.193.133.159 (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I seriously think you could do with a reading of WP:LIST. If you did, you might see that Supercouple could indeed be considered a list. - jc37 00:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've read WP:LIST, and I very much fail to see how Supercouple could be considered a list. Saying that it's a list is absurd. It's an article actually discussing the term and how it relates to each of the genres it mentions, noting only some supercouples and plain popular couples for each genre. Aside from discussing some couples listed on this list, it's not a duplicate of this list. You seriously need to reconsider your arguments. 31.193.133.160 (talk) 04:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Jc37 means this: Manual of Style/Embedded lists. --George Ho (talk) 04:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if Jc37 means that, the Supercouple article is not like that. It's not a list. Plain and simple. 31.193.133.160 (talk) 04:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? Because you say so? I've been around the fiction debates a LONG time. And while it may also be a decent article, you will have to work hard to convince me that supercouple cannot be considered list. Oh and incidentally, you may find, should some deletionist decide to nominate it in the future, calling it a list may just be what saves it, due to how the various WP:N policies and guidelines seem to work. YMMV of course. Shrugs. - jc37 04:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Why? Because you say so?" can be directed back at you. It's not because I say so. It's because it's not a list, and I doubt any future deletionist would call it such. I don't care about convincing you that it's not a list. Any future deletionist can go right ahead and nominate it for deletion, just like one tried to get it deleted back in 2007. The article has improved a great deal since then, and including lists in it is actually partly why it was so bad. 31.193.133.160 (talk) 05:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I care, so explain yourself: why is this "list" a list? Not because "it's a list in a table format". --George Ho (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do I have to explain why this list is a list? What's that got to do with this discussion? That it's a list isn't in dispute. Just looking at it and WP:LISTS shows that it's a list. 31.193.133.160 (talk) 05:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops... my bad; I must have inadvertently meant this list. All right, here's another question for each of you, but it's off-topic. Anonymous IP, why is "supercouple" not a list? Jc37, why is "supercouple" article a list? --George Ho (talk) 06:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The arguments for deletion are notably irrelevant. There is no requirement that an encyclopedic subject be a "serious" encyclopedic subject, and this seems the fundamental basis of the nomination and the delete opinions--they don't think the subject worthy. WP covers the world of popular entertainment just as much as it does more "serious" subjects; in fact, I'd  say it covers the world of popular entertainment a great deal more thoroughly than it does almost all more serious (or conventional) subjects. this is an inbalance to be regretted, but it is not to be solved by cutting back the coverage of what we do well, rather by increasing the coverage where we are inadequate. Deletion nominations based on IDONTLIKEIT are a waste of energy and a disservice to the encyclopedia . There is adequate documentation both for the concept and many or most of the individuals, and that's enough to refute OR. Obvious;y there will be some duplication between any list page and the corresponding article--the article needs to give a few examples; the list includes all of them notable enough for Wikipedia articles. Only when the list would be both small and finite is there any point incorporating it into the article they are best maintained separately.  (I did receive a notice of this discussion, but its the sort of AfD where I usually say something, and the sort of utterly misconceived nomination where I always try to say something, though my standard of politeness usually doesn't let me say something adequate to the occasion).  There are many things in the world where I regret the very existence: MMA to take a recent example one. That I wish to know as little as possible about the subject doesn't make it want Wikipedia to not cover it for others. Popular culture is the strength of Wikipedia and we should cover it to the limit of reasonableness. `  DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about me, then you misunderstand.
 * If I felt the subject wasn't worthy I would have nominated supercouple as well.
 * My issue is that the nominated page is chock full of mediocre references (and that's being charitable). It's an accumulation of WP:OR. If it wasn't, as someone above notes, why does it need to so forcefully state (both in hidden comments and even visibly on the page) that everything there is referenced and must be referenced? Even during this discussion, some junk has been removed. And those had the same sort of references that we're talking about here.
 * This isn't about inclusionism. You've seen me around enough to know by now I support lists. But this list is honestly not something that should be kept.
 * Anyway, go look at the list and at supercouple. This isn't just examples. If anything, supercouple has more examples than the list.
 * (As an aside I don't think I would have said "the strength", though I might have said "one of the strengths". But YMMV, of course...) - jc37 04:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Alrighty then. I'll just say that I stand by my comments and the other arguments for keep. Saying that this list is chock full of mediocre references when they are both popular culture and scholarly references for a popular culture topic is hilarious. Saying this article is an accumulation of WP:OR is so false it's hilarious. "Oh, yeah, it's an accumulation of WP:OR because some of the couples aren't considered supercouples by everyone." Very, very hilarious. Everything about the delete arguments is hilarious. And why are you always asking questions that have already been answered? You asked why does [this list] "need to so forcefully state (both in hidden comments and even visibly on the page) that everything there is referenced and must be referenced?" This was answered. I said: The only reason it has notices that reliable sources are used, as Jclemens points out, is because IP editors and newbie editors didn't seem to grasp that reliable sources are needed before they add a couple to this list and because these notes weren't having as much of an effect as hidden notes. The point is they don't serve to say "Please don't delete me, I'm reliably-sourced." They serve to say "You want a couple added? Then add them with a reliable source." The hidden notes are something editors likely forgot to remove.


 * Yeah, junk was removed by me, just like it's always removed any time it's added to this list. Attracting OR is not a reason for deletion. How many times must that be repeated? As said, your and others' delete arguments are all about WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. 31.193.133.160 (talk) 05:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It's an accumulation of synthesis and OR because, well, it clearly is. I am fairly certain that there is a site out there which will say nearly any two celebrities is a supercouple. It's a pretty widely bandied term and concept. Supercouple handles this much better.


 * Do you have a reason for keeping besides "IWANTIT, YOU ALL DOTLIKEIT"? I don't see much of one besides disputing the sourcing issues (while at the same time, even you removed some junk, with similar sourcing issues).


 * How about a better question. Other than those listed under "see also" (which I mentioned). Name one item that is appropriately on the list which isn't already linked at supercouple. And after you do, feel free to explain how that item is BETTERHERETHANTHERE.... - jc37 06:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * For this list to be an accumulation of OR and synthesis, it would need to have couples listed that are tagged next to sources that aren't calling them supercouples, as well as couples tagged to sources that only call them popular couples, or something similar, but not a supercouple/power couple. Most of this list is not like that. I emphasize that most of it isn't, because I don't have access to all the sources and don't feel like checking the whole list. But most of what I have seen of this list, the sources I checked over the months (including sources like The Boston Herald which go in depth about why Jesse and Angie are a supercouple), use the word "supercouple." It's only OR to you because you don't believe that we should be able to call any couple a supercouple just because a newspaper, magazine or entertainment site said so, even though these are exactly the type of sources that are going to be used for a popular culture topic such as this. There are also scholarly sources on the list, but those are not needed to list couples as supercouples. They may be needed to define the term, which they help to do in the intro, but they are just backup sources for some of the couples on this list. And while it may be true that there is a site out there which will say nearly any two celebrities are a supercouple, this list is about fictional supercouples and the term isn't thrown around when referring to fiction as much as you may think. If it was, this list would be a lot longer. People have definitely tried to add their favorite couples to it, only to have those couples repeatedly removed because there are no reliable sources calling the couples supercouples. Just look at how long List of fictional antiheroes is when compared to this list. For fiction, the term supercouple is still usually used when referring to American soap opera couples. Supercouple handles the term and concept better because it is an article about the term and concept. That's what articles on terms are supposed to do. This is a list. Your need to conflate the two pages is mind-boggling to me, and I don't want to hear anymore about how they are the same. Just like you are no doubt tired of hearing from me about how they aren't.


 * I have given very valid reasons for keeping this list. None of my comments have been based on WP:ILIKEIT. I removed junk from the list just like it is always removed from the list. For you to continue to harp on sourcing issues, as though this list is supposed to use scholarly sources for its supercouple listings and as though a decent list or article never attracts OR that needs to be removed is (as basically said before) hilarious.


 * You have eyes. You can see what is here that isn't there. Asking me to name one, when I obviously can, is ridiculous. And no more explaining the difference between that article and this list. We've been over that. 31.193.133.159 (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Why couldn't this list be more like either List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters or List of Friends characters? Well, Tokyo Mew Mew and Friends are shows, but these lists have summaries; this list doesn't. This list contains names of couples and shows, but it should contain entries of receptions if this list must be kept. Why are these delete arguments considered IDON'TLIKEIT? I think they have good points about definition of an actual supercouple. For instance, Lucas Roberts and Sami Brady and Will Munson and Gwen Norbeck are considered a supercouple, but... you get the idea. --George Ho (talk) 04:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason george, is that some people are so entrenched in the inclusionist (IWANTIT) vs deletionist (IHATECRUFT) fiction wars that they aren't even looking beyond that. I don't condemn them for it. There is a LOT of nonsense that goes on in AfD imnsho. But in this case, the defense legions are misplaced. But when you've been at war so long sometimes everyone starts looking like the enemy... - jc37 04:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As if it not being like the lists George mentioned is a valid reason for deletion. If that's the case, go delete a lot of other lists that aren't like that. I see that your mindset is delete first, think about improvement later. You are correct that a lot of nonsense goes into AfDs. Your and George's arguments are proof of that. 31.193.133.160 (talk) 05:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Enough with "I'm right" or "you are wrong" messages. Well, you do have a point that "List of fictional supercouples" is intended to list couples as a supercouples with sources, but I don't want to be perceived as wrong or right, and I don't want to perceive you as wrong or right. You have logics, and he has logics. Sources "verify" couples as supercouples, even if they defy actual definition of supercouple. Sometimes, "verification" and "original research" policies contradict each other, don't they? --George Ho (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "I see that your mindset is delete first, think about improvement later. You are correct that a lot of nonsense goes into AfDs. Your and George's arguments are proof of that." - Then you "see" incorrectly. And George and I are different people who have made different comments. (In some cases, quite different. For example, george has asked about the legitimacy of the term supercouple itself. I have not.) Lumping those who disagree with you into one group is a mistake. You end up not understanding and not listening, and just spend your time talking past people. Which is, unfortunately, what seems to be happening here. - jc37 06:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not mistaken. George didn't even necessarily question the legitimacy of the term supercouple. What he did say was: "I wouldn't call [Luke and Laura a] supercouple just because fans say so, reviewers say so, and this couple titillated viewers in the past with controversial decisions that shocked them." I went over how that (with the exception of the last point) makes no sense. If we don't go by what fans and reviewers say, then how is a couple considered a supercouple? By scholars? If so, a scholar's opinion is still an opinion. It appears that George, like you, has his own definition of what a supercouple is. What the two of you don't seem to understand is that some of these couples are branded supercouples because of the level of popularity and impact (take Luke and Noah, for example), and the only reason some of these couples are called supercouples is because scholars named them that first. Not all of the couples on this list, but some. Then again, we've already established that the term supercouple can be subjective, which is one of the few things all of us can agree on in this debate. 31.193.133.159 (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep: I too see no reason to delete, it lists a wide range of couples from all television series and it seems to be a good page to rely on for information.  Creativity 97  (Talk)  15:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No offense, but perhaps this doesn't convince me why this list must be kept. Right now, I don't see any reasons to either delete or keep; this list is somehow flawed, like List of fictional antiheroes, which is yet to be nominated for AFD any time soon. The sources should have been used to cite people's opinions, not to cite a couple as part of the "supercouple" definition, in my humble opinion. --George Ho (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep: Since so many soaps have recently gone off the air we have to ask ourselves if keeping fancruft is really worthwhile.Wlmg (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Previously, I used "cancellation" as an excuse for deletion, and I realized that it was a weak reason for deletion. Now I don't think "cancellation" should be a reason for either keep or delete; in fact, I've been rebutted by strong rationales before, and I'm grateful to see which works and doesn't work. --George Ho (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: I completely understand the various points which have been outlined here on behalf of the deletion. The factuality and non-OR factor of Wikipedia pages does need attention and the slipping to fan pages from an actual encyclopedia is something we should consider strongly. However, I do not see the deletion of this particular page to be a step in that direction. I think this page has valid and reasonable information and quite correctly lists supercouples as the definition they are known. It also does not exaggurate, it keeps thing s quite simple naming only the most important couples. And as for the term 'supercouple' I think it is a valid one, and it has had significant impact on the soap opera genre as well as others. Without the success of Luke & Laura et al. future storywriting (of soaps) could have in a totally different direction. My point being, it is an important part of history to be present in Wikipedia. I do think the page needs cleaning and re-construction, maybe a whole update on it. But deletion - no. Allukka (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As Mr. S said, this AFD is controversial, and the list itself becomes controversial because "supercouple" is a vague term. Perhaps, like a list of films in the public domain in the United States, this list needs revamping. --George Ho (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it's controversal, due to what I said higher. The list certainly has never been controversial, unless we count the arguments for delete in this discussion. I'm not sure if you are suggesting another title, one which would make this list too broad and defeat its purpose by not having "supercouple" in its title, but that's not the solution. Like I said higher, "since no one has responded to my suggestion to rename the list as List of soap opera supercouples, how about renaming it as List of fictional couples considered supercouples? This is similar to List of films considered the best and List of films considered the worst. Although I don't understand how adding these qualifiers is any different than the current title, since it should be clear to readers already that any time we say 'Supercouple,' 'Best film,' 'Greatest song,' "Best athlete,' the terms are being used subjectively (less so for supercouple because of the reasons I've already given)." 31.193.133.159 (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * AFD are not substitutes for requested moves; that's the reason no one responds here. Look, do not accuse anybody for making gibberish or nonsensical things or being wrong or something else. I would not consider myself inferior, regardless of accusations. I have good faith on you and everyone else here. Why not simply asking: "I could not understand what you are saying; can you elaborate?" or "Why are you saying this?" rather than "You're wrong, and the definition is right"? --George Ho (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that Articles for deletion/List of supercouples is pretty good evidence that this list has been controversial in the past. The rename might be a good idea, as it fits in nicely with my caveats above, though I don't think it's essential. But whether we should rename or not, I agree with George that the best place to bring it up would be a requested move after this AfD discussion is over. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep or alternatively merge to supercouple This article has at times been a nightmare to work on, but I don't think it needs to be deleted. The big problem here is that every fanboy/girl that comes along tries to add their favorite soap/primetime/comic couple to the list without reliable sources. Can the list be tightened? Absolutely. I think each entry should have multiple, good reliable sources, but I don't think the list needs to be scrapped. I will say the "See also" section should be deleted, as its just a list of couples someone likes and has decided to amend to the end of the article. AniMate 08:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with a merge back to Supercouple, but if so, the list page should be deleted, before redirecting. - jc37 08:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why should the list page be deleted before redirecting? Wouldn't it be necessary to retain the history in order to preserve attribution of merged content? Rlendog (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. You can't delete and merge. AniMate 21:08, 13 April 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.