Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of soap opera popular couples


 * 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 article was moved to Soap opera popular couples, then blanked and tagged as "speedy delete" by original creator. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

List of soap opera popular couples


Procedural nom for User:Mike Halterman. Prod with ''A lot of this list is sourced at supercouple, and contains original research just by the title of the article. What defines "popular"? Why are there no sources?'' was removed without counter-argument. As much as I hate biting, it looks like a decent enough rationale for deletion, from where I'm sitting. Thoughts? Luna Santin 02:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: I asked for a second opinion on this, thus the nom by Luna Santin. I'm not voting since it can be counted that I brought it up for AFD. It had previously been merged to supercouple; the merger had since been undone. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as original research article and fork of supercouple. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 03:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as said on the talk page unlike supercouples, popular couples may not last as long as a supercouple for many reasons like; actor recasting, sudden storyline changes, shows being cancelled during a couple's romance, etc. But are still remembered by long time fans none the less.


 * As it says on the "supercouple" page:


 * "While there are many popular couplings on soap operas today, very few earn the right to be called a supercouple by fans and the soap media alike."


 * So clearly there is a difference between a so called "supercouple" and a "popular couple." As stated on the "supercouple" page. MrKing84 04:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I still don't think there needs to be a list of couples article. Articles on the shows themselves should be able to sufficiently explain popular couples and their impacts on the show and the storylines. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As you well know many of those articles are not linked to their respective shows. Especially shows that have been off the air for years and have very little if any character history on their show's wikipedia articles. Shows like Santa Barbara and Port Charles say nothing about their popular couples on their pages. And therefore have no links to their supercouples and or popular couples' wikipedia pages. As you yourself said a long time ago "Who gets to define who is a supercouple? Many print sources that are reliable, that's who!" But yet they're are little if any sources in the supercouple article. But the list of popular couples must have them? And then what if somebody like yourself doesn't believe the source given is acceptable by the soap media like Soap Opera Digest? I just find all this very intresting. MrKing84 05:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete mostly original research. Even if sourced, it would be better as category than as a list. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * For the love of God Delete this cruft! What defines a 'popular' couple? Why not just list 'popular couples' on the relevant soap opera article page? Is 'popular' a POV statement (do we get a list of 'unpopular couples')? And most importantly, Why is there a need for this list on an encyclopedia? This is what WP:NOT was made for. --Amists 13:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It does not reflect a worldwide view at all - Poland has more than 20 prime time soap operas, all of which receive no mention here. What defines 'popular', I wonder? This could be quite easily a discreet attempt at advertising. Black-Velvet  14:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per NeoChaosX. meshach 17:51, 13 November 2006 (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.