Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Newman and Nikki Reed


 * 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. Walton Assistance! 16:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Victor Newman and Nikki Reed

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Another nomination for soap opera couples. Both these articles are about fictional couples from the soap opera The Young and the Restless. The characters and actors have their own articles, and these articles are just a chunk of plot summary and as such fail WP:NOT.  Eliminator JR Talk  16:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

'''* Note: withdrawing nom for above article per extensive rewrite. AfD remains open for article below.  Eliminator JR Talk ''' 21:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:


 * Delete Wikipedia is not Soap Opera Digest. The topic is adequately covered elsewhere. DarkAudit 16:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. If the individual characters have their own articles, convergence of the two characters can be documented therein.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 17:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Careful. If you delete a soap opera article, it's evil twin will come back, or it will turn out that it was never really deleted, it just got amnesia. It may come back and announce it is the long lost father at a very inopportune moment, usually while a will is being read, or in the middle of a wedding. --Infrangible 04:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, but there are articles that don't have a head. How can you write for an article that doesn't have a head?! -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 07:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a very important couple on the show The Young and The Restless, and I'm not even a fan of this couple, but they are just as lengendary as the Luke and Laura supercouple of the daytime drama General Hospital, though not as noteworthy. No soap opera couple can be as noteworthy as Luke and Laura, but some are, in fact, noteworthy. I am certain that I can better format a lot of these soap couple articles. All of the ones on the Supercouple list here at Wikipedia are indeed supercouples. I need time in tackling this article...as well as the Nicholas Newman and Sharon Collins article, but I strongly oppose the deletion of any of these articles. They serve as clear-cut examples of the very definition of a supercouple and should remain here at Wikipedia, as we are to have a Supercouple article at all.

I'm a participant of WikiProject Soap operas, and our goal is to improve all these soap opera articles, couple or not. My own article was nominated for deletion here not too long ago as well, but it rather ended up with the result of "Keep" due to it now meeting Wikipedia standards, as well as WikiProject Soap Opera standards. The original nominator of that article for deletion, DES, a well-respected administrator here at Wikipedia even declared it as the best any of these type of articles can be.

EliminatorJR, I cite that you're acting in good faith, I understand your concerns on this matter clearly, but I ask that you re-consider tagging some of these supercouple soap opera articles for deletion, unless they just out-right need deletion, and instead rather tag them with "Plot" and or "In the need of expert attention", anything that is about clean-up as opposed to deletion, as we aim to improve these articles. Flyer22 09:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment That'd be fine if these were new articles, or if there were only minor problems with them, but this one is over two years old and is still completely fails Wikipedia guidelines. "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot." 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. Eliminator JR  Talk  13:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (switching from redirect) Redirect. I'm not a fan of the show, but I've helped develop the guidelines at WP:SOAPS as to when "couple" articles are appropriate. Right now this article is nowhere near the standard.  If it can be brought up to speed, like if someone can add some real-world references to prove that this couple is notable outside of the world of soapdom, I might change my opinion though.  To see an example of a couple article that was judged a "keep" on AfD, see J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey. --Elonka 17:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Switching to "Keep". The article has been substantially rewritten and has multiple third-party sources which affirm the couple's notability. Good job on the rewrite. --Elonka 21:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It provides information for Victor and Nikki as a supercouple--information that isn't found on their own separate pages. This page is able to go more in depth on their relationship. Miss Burkle 18:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your optimism on this matter, EliminatorJR. Or maybe that has more to do with if this article can produce more valid sources, as well as produce real-world context, then there's no problem. Whichever, I appreciate your mindset on this issue. I get that this article is an older article, but again, our project for bettering such articles is fairly new. It's going to be a challenge for me to fix up both of these articles before this debate is closed, and I'm not sure that I can do both at this time, but I'll try. Flyer22 23:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You could always copy the basis of the article into your userspace for further improvement, in case it's deleted.  Eliminator JR Talk  08:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * DELETE. Most of the article is plagiarised from Soap Opera Central. Kogsquinge 00:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Since a lot of this content is redundant, we could redirect all these pages to List of Supercouples. This page would be formatted as per WP:LIST and expand what is already on Supercouple. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This article has been updated
This article now provides creation, real-world context and impact. Let me know if you're willing to reconsider it as a keep, EliminatorJR. Although, the Nick and Sharon article still needs fixing up. It might be best to have these two articles separate in their deletion debates, since I might not have the time to fix up the Nick and Sharon article.Flyer22 19:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Much better! although I still think some of the plot summary could be removed without any real loss to the article. I'll keep the AfD open for the other article, but withdraw this one.  Eliminator JR  Talk  21:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, EliminatorJR, and thanks for the suggestion. I'll look over editing down the plot summary some more when I get some more time.Flyer22 22:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The Nick and Sharon article has been updated

 * Yeah, I know that the cultural impact section is all about the Sharon/Nick/Phyllis love triangle, but that was one of the most notable storylines within that romance, one of the most heated some fans of that show would say, gaining all kinds of different attention.

I didn't really change the summary of this article all that much. I just re-worded it in present tense, and I didn't feel that I needed to add that much to the summary as of now, since plot summaries are limited anyway. Flyer22 00:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep in the interest of fairness. If Luke and Laura, a long-defunct supercouple, can be considered Wiki-relevant, then why can't Y&R's couples?! fhb3 08:20, 9 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.