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 delete. Tone 12:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dante Falconeri and Lulu Spencer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Dante and LuLu both have stand alone articles at Dante Falconeri and Lulu Spencer - this is an extention of that under the claim they are a fictional "supercouple" - however the FOUR sources provided are all fansites dedicated to US daytime soap operas.

I just did a news search, a book search and a general web search using different terms - but the most worrying issue was there were no online sources citing them as a supercouple, the very scope of this article, apart from a few stray soap opera fansites.

Because they have not been mentioned by any sources inline with WP:RS and no publications seem to tag them as a supercouple - what is the point in housing an article on them if primary unreliable inuniverse sources discuss them.

What is worse is that only ONE source provided mentions them being a supercouple.

Other issues are that the article is another recount of in universe plot information - the very similiar recount of plot featured in there stand alone articles. This page cannot be merged if it already exists in other articles and is a branch of from two other poorly sourced fictional character bios.. which is what they are. Hense why this needs to go in my opinion. RaintheOne ^BAM 23:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I stumbled across that page a week or so ago, and couldn't even bear to look at it. It's a mess, ineptly sourced, nearly all WP:OR and poorly written (though that, obviously, is cosmetic and could be fixed if the article was otherwise solidly sourced, which it's not). I'm very glad you brought this here. There's a couple other GH-related pages I think should go on the block for similar reasons, but I'm still pretty new around here and I don't feel comfortable listing articles on afd without more edits and time under my belt. --Ella Plantagenet (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per A10. When you strip away the fancruft and excessive WP:PLOT recapitulation, what you are left with is unnecessary duplication of material covered by existing articles for the individual characters. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per A10, as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2011 (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.