Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bennifer (2nd nomination)

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. We have plenty of articles on stupider things, and clearly there's enough coverage of the relationship between Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck, a relationship commonly referred to as "Bennifer," to justify retaining an article on GNG grounds. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bennifer[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The closing statement of the last AfD for this article was Delete...As the article is about the relationship between the actors and only passingly about the term "Bennifer" itself, any encyclopedic treatment of the relationship can be included within one or both of the actors' articles. While the relationship is arguably notable (depending on the weight one gives the sources), our notability guidelines do not require that all notable topics receive their own article when it is possible that a broader article – e.g. the actor bio(s) – can adequately cover the topic as part of its broader treatment of the subject. Several editors participating in the discussion have proposed including any relevant information in the actors' bios instead of having a standalone article, and no argument appears to have been made to explain why that proposal would be either a bad idea or against policy.

I don't think that this revision addresses the issues raised in the AfD, but since that discussion was 10 years ago, I thought it would be better to bring this to AfD again. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Once notable, always notable. Plus it's made a strong resurgence: "Bennifer 2.0: How Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck got us talking again" (the freakin' BBC), "The Complete 19-Year Timeline of the Bennifer Saga" (Vulture.com), "Bennifer Is Back: A Complete History of Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez" (Fashion). (The other three Horsemen of the Apocalypse should be along presently.) Clarityfiend (talk) 05:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the last AfD ended in delete, it is yet to be determined that this topic has ever been notable. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is evidently an enduring relationship and topic and here's another source. The worst case would be merger to some broader page such as supercouple per policy WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been redirected before there, so I suppose that's something we could do. Still, it seems like an awfully silly thing to do in an encyclopedia, but then we treat rasslin' as if it's a real sport with competition. Drmies (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Redirect fails on WP:XY. Ravenswing 19:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This relationship and it's comeback in the recent months is pretty iconic, I don't see why keeping it is a bad idea. The article has multiple sources provided to back up almost everything written in this article. It has a lot of information provided that would just go to waste if it was put in something as broad as their bios or another page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellotay (talk • contribs)
- You didn't sign, and you're not saying anything that has any basis in policy for keeping it. Drmies (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since you didn't set forth a policy reason for deleting it, I suppose that's a wash. Ravenswing 19:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--that some of this trivial shit flying around gets written up in some publications doesn't make this notable. It's noteworthy that the Guardian article, for instance, isn't about "Bennifer"--it's about the people and their relationship. That it says "the original celebrity portmanteau" means very little, and there is no further commentary on it: it would, however, justify a sentence in portmanteau. Drmies (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It "isn't about 'Bennifer' - it's about the people and their relationship"??? What else would it be about? The fact that the Guardian and the BBC still write about it nearly two decades after its coining shows plenty of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your name is not a joke, clearly. But thanks for the wikilink for "sustained", that was really nice of you. Drmies (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Seriously? It's not merely that this is a heavily sourceable topic, it's that I wager we could put in a thousand reliable sources if that wasn't insane overkill, and that some of the coverage is "trivial" is a deflection that insults our intelligence at the least. That these elements might be pitchforked into the individual bios is true, but for pity's sake, you could say the same thing about just about any content fork on Wikipedia. If you're looking for a basis in policy, this is it: this is a notable, verifiable topic that stands on its own. Done deal. Ravenswing 19:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Ravenswing, I'm still unclear on what "strong keep" means. But anyway, "trivial", there's plenty of that in the society pages, and not using those to source material in Wikipedia is hardly new, and so I don't really understand why you are getting so upset. Obviously WP:N doesn't tell us that "Bennifer" is a notable topic just because it's used in many articles, and what you are avoiding is the fact that it is a word used for a relationship between two people--and there is no reason why that content can't be dealt with in their article (which wouldn't be "pitchforking", but rather "writing content") or, as indicated above, in an article on portmanteau. What you are proposing is an article on a word, the word "Bennifer", and, at the risk of clouding up the alphabet soup, that really would violate WP:DICDEF; if the article is about the word, it's a dictionary definition, and if it's about the relationship, it should be in the BLPs that are relevant to it. "Done deal". Drmies (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's so much wrong with this it'd take far longer to rebut than it's worth, but that you're using so much energy mocking just about every other Keep proponent says it all. Why does the prospect of this article surviving AfD bother you so much? Ravenswing 01:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic appears to be notable based on reliable sources, which is the bar for inclusion. Whether or not a topic should be treated as notable by society is beyond our scope. While this can be covered on the individual pages, I don't know who that helps; editors will have to maintain sections on two pages and readers may have to read both articles to get the information that they desire. The article name seems reasonable if there are not competing pages for the title on Wikipedia. If the title is the concern, the page can be moved to title such as Relationship of Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck. —Ost (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Enough media coverage, there is no harm in the inclusion of this topic. Mehmood.Husain (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes GNG; unfortunately. Yes, it’s on a topic that belongs in a tabloid more than an encyclopedia. And yes it has lots of significant RS because our world is obsessed with celebrities.4meter4 (talk) 02:51, 18 September 2021 (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.