Deletion of List of fictional supercouples

Comment: both because of the  problems that will inevitably follow, and because lists like this are utterly pointless dead air.  This is a precious notion that is the province of fan magazines and entertainment shows, not a serious subject for an encyclopedia.  The term "supercouple" has no practical meaning, and that we have a definition is far from a compelling argument for this article.  Rather, it's evidence we're already headed down a slippery slope into the realm of fan publishing.  Least compelling is the argument about using sources that call couples "supercouples."  We're trusting puff publications to set the standard for content in an encyclopedia?  Even if they do rise to the level of , and I doubt many do, where is the quality control?  This is beneath us
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:RS)

Comment: There is no WP:OR. Plain and simple. You should be swayed by the supposed references, because they aren't supposed. Yep, magazine writers will throw around the term "supercouple" (the intro notes that), but that does not diminish the reality that the term is validly applied to many couples. Further, this list is about fictional supercouples, so there aren't going to be any "radio examples" (like the nominator wishes), and it mostly features soap opera supercouples. It mostly features soap opera supercouples because the term is most prevalent in reference to soap opera characters and high-profile celebrities. It originated in the soap opera medium, where there does exist actual academic scholarship (or there wouldn't even be a supercouple article), and has only started to expand in other areas. And when used to refer soap opera couples, it is usually used correctly. As for superheroes being part of supercouples, they are if the sources say they are. '''What the nominator fails to grasp is that we go by erifiability here at Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if you think a couple is or isn't a supercouple. It matters if the sources call them one.''' We don't delete articles that are well-sourced because we don't agree with what sources say and because an article is a constant OR magnet. If that were the case (and, yes, I'm going to use  because it can be used properly), other lists such as Honorific nicknames in popular music would have been deleted; gooodness knows people kept trying to get it deleted. The Supercouple article is not a list page. It is a page defining and discussing the evolution of the term. It used to have some version of this list in the article and was split out, per  and Wikipedia:Writing about fiction#Summary style approach. And this list has been well-maintained since 2008. The only reason it has notices that reliable sources are used, as Jclemens points out, is because IP editors and newbie editors didn't seem to grasp that reliable sources are needed before they add a couple to this list and because these notes weren't having as much of an effect as hidden notes. The point is they don't serve to say "Please don't delete me, I'm reliably-sourced." They serve to say "You want a couple added? Then add them with a reliable source." Special:Contributions/31.193.133.160|31.193.133.160
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS||WP:SPINOUT)

Comment: I did address this. This list is not a duplicate of the Supercouple article, so I don't know how Jc37 can make that assertion. I said: "The Supercouple article is not a list page. It is a page defining and discussing the evolution of the term. It used to have some version of this list in the article and was split out, per  and Wikipedia:Writing about fiction#Summary style approach. And this list has been well-maintained since 2008." This is a list. The Supercouple article is an actual article, and most of the couples here aren't even mentioned there. Special:Contributions/31.193.133.159|31.193.133.159
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article size (WP:SPINOUT)