Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Posh and Becks

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^talk 13:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posh and Becks[edit]

Delete - do we really need articles on every celebrity nickname when there are already articles on each of the people that cover all the same territory? Otto4711 22:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, I don't really see too much of a reason to keep this, seeing as I'm a fan of neither Beckham nor the Spice Girls. However, it is a common nickname for the couple, and is somewhat referenced, so I don't see any reason to delete it either. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add info to the articles on the two individuals in question as well as to Cockney Rhyming Slang. Bigdaddy1981 01:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak keep Although the couple is notable, the term is a neologism. The sources use the term, but are not about the term--they are about the couple. Information about their relationship should be in their own articles. NickelShoe (Talk) 02:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — the term has been in use since the late 1990s and was included in the Collins Concise English Dictionary in 2001 [1] so I believe that this term is no longer a neologism. I have added this information and reference to the article, which I believe negates this argument. — Jonathan Bowen 13:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The information about the inclusion in the dictionary makes a big difference. Thanks for including it. I'm still not sure this needs its own article, but it looks possible to source it properly. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, or weak redirect to either one of those chumps. Lugnuts 10:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Strangely, the best place I can think of for a redirect (if we want one) to point to is Cockney rhyming slang, assuming there's a source for the appropriation of their name. Since there isn't at present, a deletion is a better course of action. The other information should be merged into the respective biographies, assuming it's not well and truly there already. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak keep though if suggesting redirects I'd lean more towards Supercouple#Celebrity. Not making an otherstuffexists argument, I did come across Bennifer. The only other couples artice found was Brangelina, which now redirects to List of entertainers by nickname. --Breno ^talk 12:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- TomKat is formatted as a disambiguation page. NickelShoe (Talk) 13:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I knew I forgot one :) Don't know why it's a disambig, as it doesn't actually disambig the term. Probably a fork from the Tomcat disambig. Sorry for sidetracking, but perhaps this AfD outcome will set notability precedence for other "supercouples". --Breno ^talk 14:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In light of the new Collins reference and going through more news sources NEO is debatable. I'd say keep for now. This is a broader issuse on how supercouples in general should be handled, as there seems to be no standard. Possibly merge info down to both articles, for example some of this is already covered in David Beckham#Personal life, but not so sure how well this would go. --Breno ^talk 15:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — the categories for this entry are completely orthogonal to those of the two people upon which the term is based and would be lost otherwise. The term is independently notable in its own right and it would be inappropriate to redirect it to just one of the people involved since it originated from both. Choosing one or other could be deemed to be sexist. Nicknames for single celebrities do not have this problem of course, so redirection is less of an issue. This is an exceptionally notable nickname (in the UK) in any case. — Jonathan Bowen 13:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect could go to List of entertainers by nickname as Brangelina does. NickelShoe (Talk) 13:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But how would this cover the slang usage and dictionary inclusion? — Jonathan Bowen 13:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but that info (as it is deemed relevant) could easily be included in sections in V's and D's individual articles. NickelShoe (Talk) 14:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes but which one and how do you choose? If both, isn't a separate article more sensible to avoid duplication? In any case, this is an encyclopedic rather than dictionary entry (on the couple and the development of an associated term rather than either as an individual) as it currently stands. — Jonathan Bowen 15:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I certainly agree that in general celebrity couple names should not have distinct articles. This may be an exception: there is information here that is not included at either David Beckham or Posh Spice. The term seems to have taken on a life of its own, somewhat distinct from the biograhies of the couple and this article has content beyond a dictionary definition. But merging this information into the article on Beckham or Posh (or brief mentions in both) is certainly a reasonable solution as well. This page, if deleted, should certainly redirect to one of their articles. --JayHenry 18:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -- If this were any regular celebrity couple, then I could see deleting this article, but Posh and Becks are truly a notable celebrity couple. In fact, they are a supercouple, as witnessed in the Supercouple article. Not all celebrity couples are crowned supercouples, and this couple has garnered twice as much interest as even some celebrity couples who are supercouples. Posh and Becks, as well as Bennifer, are definitely two notable celebrity supercouples who should have their own articles on Wikipedia, as they have definitely gone down in history as highly notable celebrity couples. And this article is well-sourced. The only other celebrity supercouple of this day and age's media that I feel should have their own article is Brangelina. Flyer22 11:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep/Merge -- Posh and Becks is certainly a very common term for the couple, common enough to possibly merit its own article. But I think it would be alright if we Merge this article with the articles of Victoria and David, or simplay place more emphasis on the term on each of the articles.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:07, 29 June 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.