Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TomKat

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 per consensus. And now the lecture. Of those opining for deletion, Aresef, Xiong, Echosmoke, and Terraxos were canvassed for their opinions by the nominator, before he got his account, see contributions. In addition to those, IP (as Againstreason)also canvassed Animate (who said "I'm Switzerland" on his talkpage and abstained from debate), IP canvassed Vkokilov and Stellis both of whom did not respond anywhere, Jossi who !voted merge/redirect below, and Richardveryard who !voted Weak Keep below. I consider the canvassing to be with the intention of swaying the !vote, even though the "talkpage messages" left by the IP were written as "since you participated on the talkpage of TomKat...". However, IP (AgainstReason) was selective, and did not leave the same message for those talkpage participants that showed interest in the article staying on Wikipedia. (most notably, Hmwith). I can find no evidence that canvassing occured with those that have opined to keep the article. Therefore, the !votes of those that were canvassed are in effect severely downgraded in weight and counted as "one opinion" (most didn't cite policy anyway, merely said WP:IDONTLIKEIT). The result of this debate is keep, with a trout to IP/AgainstReason to please let the community find consensus without disruption. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TomKat[edit]

Pointless article which has no reason to exist outside a Tom Cruise or Katie Holmes article Againstreason (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Sourced very well, but not terribly focused. It's a commonly used term, but if trimmed it might not be much more than a dicdef. Note also that this AfD is the user's first edit. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was slightly torn on this one. I'm a big fan of bowing to precedent, and I know Brangelina and Bennifer both redirect to Supercouple#Celebrity. However, giving an article to a particular supercouple isn't unheard of: Posh and Becks have their own entry which survived a trip to afd. When I read the TomKat article, it's well written, well sourced, interesting and encyclopedic. I think there's enough for its own entry. While I don't think every celebrity couple should get their own article, I think this is among the few that should. Vickser (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the term 'TomKat' is known in hundreds of millions of households, and is more commonly used than many of the terms that have their own articles in wikipedia. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of millions of households?? Really?? --RichardVeryard (talk) 10:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as much as I wish I could in good conscience vote delete, this is unfortunately a well-documented neologism for this... ugh. Supercouple. Now let us never speak of it again. JuJube (talk) 04:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree it is a well written article and appears to be well sourced, I also agree that there seems to be no reason at all why this article should exist when it could quite easily be placed within the articles for both Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. I think we are setting a dangerous precedent to allow possibly thousands of these articles to spring up every time a so called supercouple emerges. Previous similar articles on "Brangelina" and "Bennifer" have been merged and deleted, and I think this one should follow the same route. Paul75 (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no "dangerous precedent" set by keeping this article. Not every celebrity supercouple is as notable as TomKat, Brangelina and Posh and Becks. Suggesting that Wikipedia will have thousands of these articles is ridiculous, especially considering Wikipedia's often grudge against popular culture articles. I mean, the Posh and Becks article went through two deletion debates and survived both times. Just imagine if that article was of a typical celebrity couple. The Brangelina article was only deleted, then redirected, because it wasn't much of an article. And the Bennifer article didn't have enough sources, didn't prove its notability and wasn't as taken care of as this article is. This article exists within good reason, seeing as it keeps from duplicating the same exact information in both of these individuals' articles and compliments those articles. It can also be expanded on, of course, and formatted to be even more encyclopedic than it already is.

Note: I must also pont out that Againstreason loves to "pick on" articles that I have significantly improved, despite those articles being ten times better because of me, and he first showed up as an antagonizing IP...one instance being at the Bianca Montgomery article. The fact that he has now nominated this article for deletion, his first day as an official Wikipedia editor, as well as set out to nitpick the Supercouple article, leaves me in no doubt that this nomination is not a good-faith one. Flyer22 (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Flyer22 believes that anyone who dares critcises "her" articles are out to get her. Please keep this neutral and don't bring personal paranoia into this debate. 81.141.163.150 (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: Not true, IP. I work very well with others. It is no coincidence that you've gone after all these articles I work on. AfD is also about pointing out a nominator's suspicious behavior, if there is any. And I did that. Flyer22 (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not convinced that this couple in particular needs a separate article about their relationship, when all the information here is already covered perfectly well in the existing Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes articles. It also arguably violates Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms - if 'TomKat' isn't a neologism, what is? With no offence meant to anyone who has spent time working on it, I can see utterly no need for this article. Terraxos (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But that's the thing. Most of this stuff is not covered in their individual articles. If you notice, those articles have been formatted to accommodate this one. I was not even the one who did that. Other editors, who obviously saw/see no problem this article, did.

As for neologism, Wikipedia does not say that neologisms should never be on Wikipedia; it rather says that they should typically be avoided, but may sometimes be allowed in notable cases or where the neologism has become well-known. Well, TomKat is such as case as that. Flyer22 (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Not being a close student of celebrity culture, I wasn't aware of the term "TomKat" until I happened upon this article (when following a link from a humorous website), and I agree it may be regarded as a neologism. However, as a student of Gregory Bateson, I can't see a problem in having an article dedicated to a relationship as well as articles dedicated to the individuals, if the relationship is interesting to the kind of people who find that kind of thing interesting. I note that the TomKat article is a lot longer than the Posh and Becks article, which suggests there may be a reasonable body of notable and verifiable information about the relationship. I note that there are several couples in the Category:Celebrity duos who have long since split up, but the relationship remains of historical interest, for example Ike & Tina Turner or Sonny & Cher. Meanwhile, I note that there is an article devoted to Crosby, Stills & Nash (and Young) and also an article devoted to Crosby & Nash. And I note that there is also an article Portrait of a Marriage on the relationship between Harold Nicolson and Vita Sackville-West. --RichardVeryard (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pointless. Merge this drivel into the individuals' pages. WP doesn't need an article legitimizing tabloid fodder.--Aresef (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's drivel, then moving it somewhere else doesn't solve the problem. --RichardVeryard (talk) 10:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is nothing in that kind of article that can't be (and usually isn't) covered in the respective person's articles. Therefore it basically just copies the content. It also tends to be a collection of newsmessages, usually of limited verifiability, value and..er..persistence. I would also prefer no-supercouple-article to every-couple-gets-its-article. Where and how should we set a limit to notability? --Echosmoke (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would this argument also apply to War of the Waleses, which is an article on a royal supercouple, based largely on contemporary media sources? --RichardVeryard (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seriously, this is encyclopedic? At the very least it should be merged into Cruise and Holmes' articles (and probably already is), but it doesn't need to be kept as its own article. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. No, it is not merged into their individual articles. Also, calling this article drivel and therefore it should be deleted completely disregards other editors' judgments above who clearly see it as being above drivel. And, Echosmoke, where should we set a notability standard? That is sort of a silly question to ask, considering that most celebrity couples are not supercouples and do not have a notable combined name. A lot of celebrity couples may have a combined name, but those names are not nearly as well-known as TomKat. And those couples aren't nearly as publicized. This article can be about the term and, as it already does, include information about TomKat that their individual articles do not include. Really, what's so unencyclopedic about this article (besides its name)? If it truly was, would there be as many Keep "votes" as there are, with several editors saying that this article is indeed encyclopedic and worth keeping? I think not. It is nowhere close to being written like a tabloid.

Note 2. I am also taking this time to point out that Againstreason has seemingly participated in WP:CANVASS in order to get this article deleted. He did this as IP 81.141.163.150. None of the editors he contacted have been involved with the TomKat article for quite a while. And why did he contact these editors? Because he knew/knows/figured they would/will cast a delete "vote" and give him what he wants -- this article deleted. He even contacted editor AniMate, an editor who has never been involved in the TomKat article, because he knows that AniMate and I have had disputes in the past with each other...and he figured AniMate is my enemy, that therefore AniMate would cast a delete "vote". Surprising him, I'm sure, AniMate declined to participate in this deletion debate. Flyer22 (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Tom Cruise. No reason why any new material cannot be included in Cruise's bio. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Yes, Jossi, one of the editors Againstreason knew would "vote" to basically delete this article. Hmm, I wonder why he didn't contact Hmwith, an editor who worked on this article with me and was the first to expand/improve it. Is it because he knows Hmwith is currently away from Wikipedia, and has been for some days? I doubt it.

- Jossi, you brought this up before on the TomKat talk page, that it should be merged into Tom Cruise's article. But, like editor Hmwith and I stated then, why Tom Cruise's article? What about the Katie Holmes article? What, this stuff should go into one article but not the other? Be duplicated in both articles? I see absolutely no good in merging or deleting this article. Especially, since there are books that note this couple; all of them are not necessarily about this couple, but enough of them feature this couple that this article can include significant information that neither of their individual articles include...and can be even more encyclopedic. Flyer22 (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This has all the editorial value of an advertisement for a blow-up doll's pimp. Justify its inclusion and you can justify anything. "Look, Ma, that fat pimple on my butt made two supermarket tabloids and a filler on Fox Nooz. Now it's notable enough for Wikipedia!"

Here is a list of trivial, nonsense, or idiot topics which might somehow justify an encyclopedic article, any one of which might be a suitable home for any actual content salvaged from this rubbish bin:

TomKat does not even have a subject. Cruise is a person (loosely speaking); Holmes is a person. I grant that even their brat is a person. The infatuation of the drooling masses with famous people is a subject; cynical manipulation by PR agents is a subject; yellow journalism is a subject. But this article merely panders to the fiction that if we shout hard enough, we can create a two-headed beast and elevate it to independent stardom. That is not merely bullshit; it is bullshit contrived to serve a low commercial purpose.

Who is behind this article? I don't doubt that Cruise's PR firm and any number of reality-starved media outlets and the SeaOrg itself would be happy to pay editors to support this glurge. What I find revolting is that you're doing it for free. You should at least have the sense to get paid in cash.

Delete, murder, whack with an axe, burn and strew the ashes. Or keep it, if you like, so I can continue to amuse my friends by pointing them to the bellwether of Wikipedia's corruption, decline, and self-parody. — Xiong 熊 talk * 23:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. Completely disgree, Xiong. We had this discussion last time, along with your apparent detest for anything celebrity. And, again, I see you brought the insults for Cruise and Holmes. Yeah, your "vote" for deletion is completely unbiased (sarcasm). You only showed up here because Againstreason summoned you. Obviously, he cannot get an artice deleted without canvassing. He saw that this article was about to be kept and panicked. Really, I find that humorous, as well as most celebrity/pop culture hate. Flyer22 (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And, oh, it is not fiction that "if we shout hard enough, we can create a two-headed beast and elevate it to independent stardom". That happens all the time. Your inability to accept that is no one's problem but your own. This article being deleted will not phase me one bit (after all, I'm not the one who created it or first expanded it; all I did was make it better than it originally was), though I'm sure Againstreason will feel that he's won some epic battle against mean ole Flyer. Oh well. I have it saved anyway, just in case the term TomKat becomes significantly notable by itself. The deletion of this article will free me up for other stuff. But while you guys are at it, why not go ahead and try and delete the Posh and Becks article? I'd love to grab some popcorn and see pop culture haters justify nominating that for a third time and striving to finally rid the great Wikipedia of such "trash". LOL. As if A Shot at Love II with Tila Tequila, and others dating show articles similar to it, are the most encyclopedic. LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is useful to informations seekers (my wife used it to prove that it's not only an aircraft). Xiong, if any of your allegations have substance, by all means include them in the article, it would certainly make it more interesting. Paul75, I fail to see the "danger" from new "super couple" articles; it's not like we'll run out of disk space. Kind regards, Ryttaren (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2008 (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.