Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relationship of Eve Polastri and Villanelle


 * 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 merge to Killing Eve. Consensus is that, as noted by The Gnome, that the topic of the article is essentially the plot of the TV series Killing Eve, which makes it a content fork of our article about that series.  Sandstein  10:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Relationship of Eve Polastri and Villanelle

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An unnecessary article, as raised on the talk page. Original research cobbled together from reviews and analysis of a television series. Adds nothing over the existing character articles, and reads like a high school essay. Stephen 05:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Stephen 05:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Stephen 05:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete/merge. This seems like a very detailed piece of WP:OR, suffering from WP:SYNTH. The relationship is not the main topic of any source cited; it is a plot element that is not analyzed~in-depth by reliable sources. The article is actually interesting and well written (I don't think it is fair to compare it to a high school essay as the nom does), but due to the OR issues I'd suggest the author tries to publish it some academic journal (or less demanding popular media) first, Wikipedia is not the palce for original research. Some parts of this could be saved by being merged into articles about characters or the plot summary, but I don't see evidence that the relationship itself meets WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG and instead I have major concerns over it being on the wrong side of OR. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Since I was careful to accurately describe what reliable sources said (merely organizing the content thematically into sections), I'm interested in what you think is my "original research" or "synthesis"; be specific. Related: surely you don't think notability requires a topic to be "the main topic" of sources; here, the relationship ("buddy comedy", "Killer Chemistry", etc. in references' titles) of the two same-importance main characters, virtually permeates sources' discussion even if discussed in a larger context of the show. —16:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC) WP:GNG specifically states that "Significant coverage...does not need to be the main topic of the source material.". —RCraig09 (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong keep: Per my extended comments on the Talk page; please read them if there's any doubt. As I emphasized there and as shown in various edits (example), the relationship per se (attraction betweeen pursuer and pursued, same-sex relationship interaction, cat-and-mouse details, personalities becoming more alike over time, etc. etc.) is critical content in the series, above and beyond the characters separately. See especially the sourced content in the "Context of the relationship..." section (relationship is the "core of the show"; "the "series' true allure is the deeply complicated love-hate dynamic"; "TV's most mesmerizing, twisted relationship"). Incidentally, this diff shows dozens of other standalone relationship articles on WP. Nominator's reasons are not policy based ("unnecessary" article?), factual (there's no "original research") , or substantive ("cobbled together"; "high school essay") . Disclosure: I've been the article's main editor. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a simple fact that as I wrote the separate Eve Polastri and Villanelle (character) articles, I encountered a lot of sourced "relationship" content that would have required duplication in the two character articles, and possibly also in the main Killing Eve article. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete What you need to justify this type of article is something like Superman and Lois Lane. In that case you have 82 years of ongoing comics, something like 8 live actions films, at least 4 live action TV shows (the Arrowverse makes this hard to count), multiple animated TV shows and animated films, a young adult novel trilogy, at least one other published novel that is not a novelisation of any existing work at all, and even songs that come into considering the implications of the relationship. OK that is probalby more than you need to establish why you would have an article on it, but it takes lots and lots of material to justify having a freestanding article of this type. Robinhood and Maid Marian is only a redirect, and the few other love pairings I could think of off the top of my head in comics returned no hits. Oh, and I forgot to mention with Superman and Lois Lane there was an 11 year radio serial as well. It is not just 82 years of them being put together in comics, starting with the first issue of Superman in 1938. The next Superman TV show will be Superman and Lois (set in the same universe as Supergirl, and now also The Flash). The 1990s TV show Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman was a situational romantic comedy that put the connections of Lois and Clark front and center. You need a subject to have this level of background material to create a cultural impact to justify having articles on it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there any concrete basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines for your new, higher-threshold-of-notability requirement? Here is my partial list of other "relationship" articles covering subjects with less notability than your new Superman/LoisLane standard. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Re-Organize / Merge as a redundant content fork to the main character articles, but still something of verifiable value here. Agree with Piotrus that this is near WP:SYNTH and tries to build an odd article scope that isn't really consistent with our best practices. But a lot of this stuff is verifiable, if verging on an original essay from the author. Some of this could help flesh out the character articles, or a character list. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge. I come to this with an admitedly suspicious mind since this type of article, just like the plot sections in articles about films, is usually loaded with original work, and often guilty of some intense forking. The contested article, though, is not guilty of either infraction. The necessary references are there and, not surprisingly for anyone watching television, verify that the subject is highly notable, without a whiff of the WP:OR aroma. The article is about a relationship that has, per sources, engaged at length, to the point of fascination, critics and the audience alike. However, here's where we stumble towards having a stand-alone, independent article: The relationship is the series! The series is about that relationship and without the relationship there is no series. It's what all the references are actually, essentially saying. This is not the same at all with the other pairings cited above by RCraig09, with articles of their own, since these pairings are not the central subject of the underlying story. This is a well researched text that's undoubtedly worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia and we should dedicate a section in Killing Eve to it, sources and all. -The Gnome (talk) 08:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Finally someone has actually checked the references' content! (Thank you.) Every sentence in the main body is specifically and reliably sourced, without the WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS that is accused but not substantiated by others above. Again: I created this article after finding abundant content that should not be needlessly duplicated in the two separate characters' articles previously created. Though I would not go so far as to agree with The Gnome that "the relationship is the series",(see perceptive analyses in "Critical Response, Series 1" in the main KE article) I could live with a clean, one-piece merge to the main article (though it's at 90KBytes now). In any event, the notability of the relationship per se demands this material stay together. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete as nominator. Stephen 01:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Stephen. By nominating this article for deletion you already submitted your !vote to delete. Per WP:AFDFORMAT, nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion and nominators should refrain from repeating this. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 06:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, struck my vote. Stephen 06:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete the place for this is in the main article on the series.  DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you then be opposed to a Merge? -The Gnome (talk) 06:53, 21 July 2020 (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.