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The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sam and Diane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Overcoverage of a topic that is already sufficiently covered in the parent article on the show. Detailed analysis in this article consists of synthesis of the references provided. RadioFan (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As a creator of this article, I oppose to your nomination as "overcoverage." Sam and Diane are best known as a couple more than you know. Have you seen Cheers and independent and third-party sources? Receptions say that Sam and Diane are either the best or the worst couple, and they say that Sam and Diane predominated the show. Yes, they are not soap opera couple, such as Luke and Laura, but this article is not erraneous as other articles of soap opera entities, such as Tom Cudahy (before it became deleted into a redirect) and David Wicks. Look at Relationship of Clark Kent and Lois Lane; what do you think? --George Ho (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Basically, they are well-covered in sources I provided and meets notability guidelines, including WP:GNG, and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Notability (policy). --George Ho (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC) I have been using WP:MOSTV and references to make this article balance fiction and fact. How can this article not meet these policies and guidelines? --George Ho (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete about as obvious a violation of WP:NOT#PLOT as you'll ever see, made doubly pointless since both characters already have articles, which cover much of the same material. Kill it now before it catches on among fandom editors and we get articles for every pair of characters who ever made goo-goo eyes at each other in any work of fiction. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? WP:NOT#PLOT explains that an article should not consist of only summary. How can this article consist of only plot? There is reception and casting, unless it is to you OR originally researched and meaningless. Yes, they have their own articles, but their own articles treat them as mere characters on their own, while this article treats them as a couple. Is there something wrong with this article? How can this article not meet encyclopedia standards? --George Ho (talk) 03:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but I think the article concept is fundamentally flawed and patently unsuitable for a general-interest encyclopedia. I don't think any amount of editing or reworking could fix that. This is material better suited to a fan site. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fan site? My work is a "fansite"? Is my work badly-written? Does it violate WP:NPOV? I still don't understand how this topic is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Sometimes, I don't like fansites, but I'm good at it, do I? Is "Sam and Diane" story a summary-only description of work? It meets WP:N, but does it also violate WP:NOT and anything else? --George Ho (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) Do Casting and Reception violate WP:OR as a synthesis of references? --George Ho (talk) 04:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) I have created a Project proposal that should cover fictional couples on any medium, such as soap opera couples (i.e. "Luke and Laura", Erica Kane and Dimitri Marick, Patrick Drake and Robin Scorpio, EJ and Sami, and "Lois and Clark": Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Fictional couples. --George Ho (talk) 05:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- It's hard to argue with the "overcoverage" point. However, "we don't need it" doesn't seem to be a sufficient reason to delete a referenced, notable article. With all of the deletions George Ho has been proposing, I was extremely pleased to see him actually create something. The article certainly needs work; I've done a bit of copy-editing, and would be happy to continue helping with it. Notabitily seems marginal, but I think it squeaks by. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I'd also like to note that "kill it now before it catches on among fandom editors..." is not a valid reason to delete. Any "fandom" articles created can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and deleted if necessary. Deleting an article as a preventitive measure against similar articles is generally not done. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm as surprised as anyone. Extensively sourced with what looks like actual relevant sources demonstrating significant coverage. While some parts risk repeating what's in Sam Malone and Diane Chambers, I don't see much of anything that isn't relevant to the relationship. The prose is weak overall, but the content looks fine to me. I still think the title should be changed to Relationship of Sam and Diane or Relationship of Sam Malone and Diane Chambers or something similar (to better reflect the actual scope), but that's a different discussion. Powers ^T 15:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "Overcoverage" is not a valid reason to delete as our editing policy is to preserve the best bits and that would mean merger, not deletion. The topic is certainly notable; for example, see Full of secrets which explains that the courtship of Sam and Diane was quite influential in TV history. Warden (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge elsewhere; the only valid complaint I see is that this maybe isn't the best division of the topic, which is not a deletion concern because the content belongs somewhere under whatever name, whether on the show itself or the characters, or as is. The only real deletion-related claim made above (the nominator certainly didn't make one) is WP:NOTPLOT, which is ridiculous to read as forbidding articles just because they contain plot or are about a notable plot narrative, and instead states merely that articles must be more than summaries of plot. Clearly this article provides plenty of well-referenced, real-world context in the form of development of the character relationship and critical reception. To dismiss that out of hand because of your opinion of The Way This Encyclopedia Should Be amounts to nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. postdlf (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2012 (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.