Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of major supercouples and other 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 delete. Sr13 04:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

List of major supercouples and other supercouples

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unsourced original research. Prod removed. --OnoremDil 03:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that I didn't really remove the prod - I reverted back about 10 edits and then put the prod back which was inserted in the middle of the reverted edits. Kevin 04:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, fairly obvious listcruft, obvious OR. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as listcruft, per Hammer. Kevin 04:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment without this article, how will I know if my couple is a supercouple? Capmango 05:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Already a list at Supercouple Sancho 05:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. provides more info than Category:Supercouples (Organising them by country) - list mentioned by Sancho can be removed/redirected/merged to this seperate list page.--ZayZayEM 05:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and rename to just List of supercouples--ZayZayEM 05:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Another comment: This doesn't have to be OR. The list at Supercouple has a reference for each couple listed there being referred to as a supercouple. I think it would be easy to find references for these. Sancho 06:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - the sources for the half-dozen or so I checked are not reliable. They include the home page for a speakers' bureau, fansites and pages published by the networks. Even with reliable sources that happen to use the word "supercouple," there's no objective standard as to what constitutes a "supercouple." Otto4711 02:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete for subjective "supercouple" and redundancy to list in the supercouples article. Doczilla 06:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 12:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 12:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, absolutely no objective inclusion criteria here, no attempt to define "supercouple", no attempt to define a "major supercouple", rife with OR.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per everyone else - and it doesn't even explain what a "supercouple" is.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 17:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per all of the above. ♠  TomasBat  21:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete-- and then start deleting all those blue-linked articles that have been created by someone identifying each "supercouple" (soaper couple?), beginning with the article "Cliff Warner and Nina Cortlandt". Okay, "Wikipedia is not TV Guide" (writing this with a straight face).... and even if it is, this is a little too cute.  Stop with Luke and Laura.  Mandsford 23:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per, um, everyone. Otto4711 02:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete- this is several steps too far. What's a supercouple? a major supercouple? and do we ever want an article entitled "List of major things and other things"? Carlossuarez46 05:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleteper nom., and all.--JayJasper 19:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Mandsford, Cliff Warner and Nina Cortlandt are a valid supercouple within the main Supercouple article, which has a valid link un-related to a fansite or the network which they are from, but if Wikipedia doesn't consider a speakers' bureau reliable in citing a soap opera supercouple, I'll replace its link. Otto4711, as for half of the soap opera supercouples in the main supercouple article not having reliable sources, I consider Soap Opera Central as reliable as they come, and WikiProject Soap Operas even includes it within their standards, but, yes, the other half of the supercouples within the main supercouple article have reliable sources. Not exactly fansites, at least not in the definition of a fansite specifically for a couple. I also don't feel that what a soap opera supercouple is is subjective. A couple is either cited as a supercouple or a potential supercouple by the soap opera media...or outside of the soap opera media...or not. I will try to provide reliable sources for the few soap opera supercouples on the main supercouple list within the supercouple article that don't have them.


 * As for this article, I've been feeling for a while now that this article should be deleted. New editors are coming to this article to add couples to lists, that are NOT even supercouples, as a way to get around the main supercouple article in which will NOT tolerate couples being listed on its main supercouple list that are not cited as supercouples by valid sources. Flyer22 23:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete: Even if they are superdoupercouples. Maybe I just don't get this one. -MrFizyx 18:21, 26 June 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.