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 --Haemo 20:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article reads as a personal essay, and in the couple of dozen source links I checked, none used the word "supercouple". Guy (Help!) 14:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but needs major trimming. It does seem to be pretty widely used in soap operas, as in this article. It seems to be a neologism (or at least rarely-used) as it applies to celebrities and fiction outside soaps though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I had a feeling that this article would be nominated for deletion...since I knew that it would take me a while to get around to fixing it up further. The word Supercouple is not a neologism. It has existed since the 1980s. And is even widely used to describe celebrity power couples, as witnessed in this article. This article is also not completely original research. The parts that are will be sourced with valid references. To delete this article would be like deleting the Supermodel article, or the Superhero article, etc. If you check my user page, you will see that it states that I am working on fixing this article up even further, just as I've been working on fixing up several soap opera supercouple articles. And for the soap opera couples and the celebrity couples, the word Supercouple is most definitely used. Furthermore, the word Supercouple does not have to be used for couples that have influenced popular culture, which is the case for the primetime supercouples. The primetime supercouples are the only ones that don't exactly state "supercouple" all the time, because the word is not used all that often to describe primetime power couples, but is widely understood that they are supercouples. The list of soap opera supercouples and the list of celebrity supercouples definitely use the word. I really was not planning on fixing up this article right now, because I'm working on fixing up the Tad Martin and Dixie Cooney article right now, as in soon that article will be up to Wikipedia standards. The Supercouple article is well-served and well-needed. The Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone couple and other soap opera couples that are truly super are also well-served by this article, and the word...Supercouple...is most definitely notable. Flyer22 18:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, term had official usage at the Soap Opera Awards as early as the 1980s, and became slang for celebrity couples and yuppies in the early 1990s. Numerous Google News Archive citations for all three usages. --Dhartung | Talk 20:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First official usage seems to have been at the 1986 awards.[1] --Dhartung | Talk 20:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just like deleting superhero and supermodel, eh? Let's see, superhero gets 3,180,000 ghits; supermodel gets 2,940,000; supercouple gets 36,200, including articles like "Be a Super Couple and Have a Successful Marriage" which cannot really be considered to be about the same thing. I'm also not sure about whether the statute of limitations on neologisms runs back to the 1980s or not, but the current opening sentence does say that the term is one. Is there a good article in there trying to get out, through the gossip, synthesis, and original resarch? I can't see it. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 20:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the term is also used to refer to modern high-stress marriages where both partners have high expectations. [2] This doesn't seem like a very well-defined subject area. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 20:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, but what that proves is that the term spread from just being used to describe fictional power couples. Not that it is not well-defined. The term was still coined within the realm of soap opera due to the supercouple Luke Spencer and Laura Webber. And is mostly used to describe couples, fictional or not, seemingly super in union. Flyer22 20:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see a good article not too far away when it comes to this article. The opening sentence of this article should have probably never used the word neologism. I put that word in there at the suggestion of an editor, and because, yes, back then...the word was a neologism. But to further address notability of the term Supercouple, I also want to state that the term is thoroughly used in scholarly. For example, this first reference here...[3]...is what I'm going to use, besides other references to source in the lead. Other scholarly references of the term Supercouple include these...[4][5] And it is widely studied in reference to film supercouples as well, such as in this reference...[6] (which is the same as the first reference that I listed in concerns to this, but this part is studying film supercouples even more specifically). Reliabe news outlets, such as The News & Advance, also use the term. [7] I will go ahead and alter the lead of this article soon, and change and source the wording of the first paragraph below that, and take care of better formatting of the references beside the couple names on the lists of this article later. The Primetime supercouples list and the Film supercouples list are supposed to provide references validating that those couples are important couples within popular culture; those references do not have to state the word Supercouple. If the reference beside the couple addresses their importance and significant impact on society, that is what is required for the listing of those two sections. Flyer22 20:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me for being blunt, but Google hits are not the be-all and end-all. I have to roll my eyes when people love to trot out Google search results, like nothing can come between that and actual citations. Mike H.I did "That's hot" first! 07:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I know that Google hits are not the be-all and end-all, Mike. Not sure if you were addressing me on that subject as well as others, but I felt that I'd answer. Right now, I'm organizing the supercouple lists of this article in my Word document on my computer, and soon I'll apply a neater version of these lists to this article. Flyer22 07:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was addressing SheffieldSteel, not you. You've been working very hard on sourcing these articles. Mike H.I did "That's hot" first! 07:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not provide google hit information in order to make an argument about notability, but as a response to the argument "deleting supercouple would be like deleting superhero or supermodel". Say what you like about google ratings (and personally I do not believe they provide definitive proof of anything) but the relative values do, I think, give an indication of how ridiculous that argument was.Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 21:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that argument was or is ridiculous at all. The term Supercouple is just as notable as the term Supermodel or the term Superhero. The term Supercouple is actually used more on television these days (and not just soap operas) than the word Supermodel or Superhero is, from what I've seen, and given how it is so widely used to describe notable celebrity couples as well, it seems to be used more so in the media than the word Supermodel or the word Superhero is these days. You can believe otherwise, of course, but, personally, I don't believe that the term Supermodel or the term Superhero is any more notable than the term Supercouple. And the articles of the name Supermodel and of the name Superhero here at Wikipedia aren't in that much better shape than this article (at least not at this time). As for this article, as I've stated before, I'm working on more sourcing for it, and better formatting of its lists, which will be done soon. I'll gather more information concerning what makes supercouples (also known as power couples) and add it to this article over time, but it certainly is not in extremely bad shape. I'll most definitely be tweaking out its problems for as long as I come back to Wikipedia. Flyer22 23:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have changed the lead of this article to better reflect the Supercouple term and I have added more sources to it, though I don't believe that a lead really needs a few references or several in it, as even Wikipedia guideline states. And the rest of this article is more of a matter of sourcing a few more instances, and better formatting the lists, which I will be doing during this deletion debate, and if this article is spared, further after that as well. Flyer22 23:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've heard this term several times... Hello magazine syndrome. Notability is not in issue given the amount of gossip magazines who use the term and enough sources back this up. I suppose WP:RELY might be a difficulty to come over once the article has been beefed out a little, but this is manageable I think - current sources are overweighed with soap gossip magazines, but BBC and Washington Post also feature. When tidying it up, it would be nice to see it being a little less US centric? I'll keep an eye on the article and see if there is anything I can do to add some UK/European relevance... eg Jordan and Peter Andre! --manchesterstudent 12:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, Manchesterstudent! I'll try to get the lists of this article better formatted today. I'd love you to work on this article with me. I've felt for a while now, that it is too U.S.-centric. Flyer22 13:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.