Deletion of List of supercouples

Comment: and improve. Of course reliable sources are arbitrary, they are written by individuals and it is the opinions of these individuals with which we verify. We aren't concerned with so-called |facts over everything else. The inclusion criteria are clear and you can debate them on the talk page (the second criterion isn't disputable for a list with this name). You can argue for removing certain entries, and if there aren't enough left to warrant a stand-alone list, then talk about deletion. A split based on the scope issues attacked by the nom would also be an editorial decision
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: As long as Supercouple remains a viable Article, this ''List of'' will also remain a viable Article (and no, that is not based on 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: This is not a case of  (as I inferred from the nomination). The term "supercouple" is defined in cited sources and in the associated article Supercouple. Article needs revision to more clearly establish importance.  Note: I tried to access several online sources cited in the introduction to this article, and http://www.sofeminine.co.uk/mag/entertainment/d999.html this was the only link that worked
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: The four criteria for inclusion constitute |original research and I don't see any way this can be fixed without gutting the list. The only acceptable criterion would be that the people were specifically described as supercouples by a |reliable source, which doesn't appear to be the case for most entries
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:RS)