Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Posh and Becks (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. W.marsh 17:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posh and Becks

edit
AfDs for this article:
Posh and Becks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Rationale: This is a tabloid neologism more worthy of the tabloid journalism which generated it than an encyclopaedia. (Note that User:Bumm13 is the actual nominator.) Orderinchaos 13:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the reason for maintaining it, note that that falls more within Wiktionary's scope than ours - we're not a dictionary. Orderinchaos 13:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Delete. There is nothing noteworthy about this couple as a couple -- individually, they are notable and have articles about them, but together, there's not really anything to say about them except hey, they're together. It is conceivable that this could be turned into a disambiguation page (to the two of them, obviously), even though I don't particularly like the idea, due to the dismal inefficiency of the wiki's search capabilities. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 13:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I wouldn't say that these two are not notable as a couple. Their couple aspect is one of the most notable things about them, as the term clearly demonstrates. "Posh and Becks" isn't just any celebrity duo term/nickname, and their union is treated as if they are King and Queen, with the media often calling them a supercouple, power couple, and other types of "Oh, they are the 'it' couple" names. Sure, they don't act as superheroes together, off trying to save every dying child, but they are a notable couple. Flyer22 18:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet you haven't demonstrated as to how they are notable. The media "coins" phrases and "concepts" all the time. Wikipedia doesn't include such topics in the non-entertainment realm. Why not? Wikipedia doesn't because it is not a news outlet. Concepts about specific "supercouples" falls into the ___domain of tabloids and entertainment news. Thus, terms used to describe such nebulous entertainment trends and fads are neologisms. Bumm13 23:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree that I haven't shown that the term is notable. I have, and so do the sources. Concepts about specific supercouples are allowed to be included on Wikipedia, when they are notable enough, whether they are a fad or not. Most everything can be considered a fad, but that does make it any less notable. In some years, the phrase "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" may be considered a fad, but that doesn't make it any less notable. The term Posh and Becks isn't so much of a fad anyway, I'd say, as Stormie points out below. Flyer22 23:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "one of the most notable things about them"? More notable than being captain of a national football (soccer) team, being the most highly-paid footballer in the world, having a movie named after him, having fistfuls of hit single ...? - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 22:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And I said one of the most notable. Yes. Flyer22 23:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - very common term applied to them a as a couple, at least in the UK media. Ben W Bell talk 13:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. Yes, it has sources... but we have articles about them seperately as people, and this seems kinda unnecessary... although it's a well known phrase...--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to David and Victoria Beckham Carter | Talk to me 16:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't solve the problem of notability in this instance. Such a move would only weasel around the problem of using neologisms. In order for David and Victoria Beckham to have their own article, the duo has to be notable outside of their individual notabilities. This works fine for Sonny and Cher; it doesn't work in this instance. Bumm13 23:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As I stated on my talk page, this article does satisfy Wikipedia criteria for inclusion when it is notable. This is a term, neologism or not, that has had a lot of exposure and impact. If the term is worthy enough to be entered into dictionaries, then it is worthy enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Yes, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but it is all about notability, and this term is definitely notable. Flyer22 18:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as stated by Jonathan Bowen in the first deletion debate for this article, "the term has been in use since the late 1990s and was included in the Collins Concise English Dictionary in 2001, so I believe that this term is no longer a neologism." Flyer22 18:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is not well referenced. Of the five references, one is from a PR press release site, one is from a clearinghouse site and one is the couples' own website, none of which satisfy WP:RS. The other two are not about the term "Posh and Becks"; they merely use the term and per WP:NEO that's not good enough. Otto4711 03:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This may be WP:WAX, but consider the fact that we have articles on Lennon/McCartney and The Glimmer Twins, to quote two of my favourite bands, that deal with people who are linked to one another (although obviously not in the same sense as Posh and Becks) and those have not been nominated for deletion... yet.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no sources that show this term is notable. Using the term makes it valid, but not notable. So delete. i (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. No sources that show this term is notable? The article surely does, as others have cited above, and as was the reason why this article was kept before. If a celebrity couple name being entered into the Collins Concise English Dictionary, as well as becoming a term that encompasses a culture, isn't notable, then I don't know what celebrity couple name is. Flyer22 21:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Where does it say that the term Posh and Becks was not entered into the dictionary? The source here states, "News correspondent Kate Adie and actor Ronnie Barker are some of the famous names removed from the new Collins Concise English Dictionary to make way for David and Victoria Beckham. As well as new celebrities making it into dictionary there is a whole crop of phrases and street slang that have been adopted."[1] David Beckam and Victoria Beckam is not a famous/notable expression. "Posh and Becks" is. And this source here...[2]...shows that the term is included to mean sex. Flyer22 22:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where does it not say the term Posh and Becks? Well, I don't know to answer that; in the article? It says that Kate Adie and Ronnie Barker were replaced by David and Victoria Beckham, not Posh and Becks. You still have not shown me a source that shows that "Posh and Becks" is a notable expression. i (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not shown you? The sources above, as well as other sources within this article, clearly showcase the term as notable. Whether you don't feel that it is notable is your opinion, I suppose. The article states that those two were entered into the dictionary, and the title of that article refers to the term Posh and Becks. I don't see how an assumption can be drawn that the phrase that was entered into the dictionary was David and Victoria Beckham, when that is not the phrase/term that captivated British culture. And when the article mentions that a whole crop of phrases and street slang that have been adopted have been included within that dictionary. It surely shows that they are entered there in that second source. You have not shown me that this term doesn't warrant its own article. Nothing can change my mind on this matter. And it seems your feelings are set on this matter as well, so I agree to disagree with you on this. Flyer22 22:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the title is Posh and Becks, but assuming that "Posh and Becks", not "David Beckham" and "Victoria Beckham" was put in (as the article implies) is unfounded, and to do so would be original research without the actual dictionary confirming it. Using the term does not making something notable. The second source proves (maybe) that the term "Posh and Becks" being about sex is notable, not it being about David and Victoria. So the article here would need to be about that. But I agree, we are stuck on this issue, and barring any other sources, will not have a change of opinion. i (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing original research that the term that was put into that dictionary was Posh and Becks and not David Beckham and Victoria Beckham. The second source even demonstrates as much. That second source, while showing that it has also come to mean sex, is the term Posh and Becks. It is about the couple, in that it was this couple that gave way to the term being referred to as whatever it is referred to as in English culture. It means more than one thing, but is a result of this couple's popularity. This article doesn't just address the term being about this couple, but other aspects of the term's popularity, and it can be expanded. Again, we don't agree, but everyone cannot agree on everything in deletion debates. Flyer22 23:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - whether or not the phrase is in a dictionary is irrelevant, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There's nothing here that can't be covered in about one sentence in each of the individual's articles. "David Beckham married Victoria 'Posh Spice' Adams in 1999 and the couple is often referred to in the tabloid press by the nickname 'Posh and Becks'." Boom. Everything you need to know about the nickname. Otto4711 21:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Disagree. The term is not just about whether or not it was entered into the dictionary. It's about whether or not the term is notable, and it is. We say Wikipedia is not a dictionary, yet we have plenty of words on Wikipedia that can be found in dictionaries. This term actually encompasses a whole culture, this from just a celebrity couple name. It doesn't get more notable than that for a term. Flyer22 22:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh for god's sake. Of course you disagree; your obsession with the detritus of pop culture doesn't allow you to do anything but disagree. The term does not "encompass a whole culture." That's just a ridiculous thing to say, and I note that the article's claim that it does is tagged as unsourced. It illustrates a tabloid fascination with two people, each of whom already have extensive articles on WIkipedia, and this article merely regurgitates information that is (or should be) already in their articles. Do we need "Posh and Becks" to inform us that they're married and bought a big house and are now in America? No. Otto4711 03:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny. I thought/think the exact same thing about you...except the other way around. Your obsession with deleting the detritus of pop culture doesn't allow you to do anything but disagree. And I see you still love to be uncivil, especially when a deletion debate isn't going your way. I have no obsession with popular culture, just because I don't believe that any of the supercouple articles should be deleted from Wikipedia...and I edit those articles, or just because a topic has a lot to do with popular culture that it should be deleted from Wikipedia. You base "my obsession" with popular culture on the fact that I disagree with you a great deal on supercouple articles, because that's mainly the only type of popular culture you've seen me in. Your assertion is false. As for Posh and Becks, it is not ridiculous to say that the term encompasses a whole culture. As for that being tagged as unsourced? It was only tagged during this deletion debate as unsourced. And I'm sure that it can be sourced, though I'm not sourcing it for you. You always say "it illustrates a tabloid fascination with two people", tabloid this, popular culture that, and I don't agree with you. The term is notable, therefore I see nothing wrong with it being on Wikipedia. That's just how it is. I mostly see your nominations of these types of articles as I don't like it. You know that we usually don't agree, and we aren't going to agree here. Flyer22 04:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not a neologism (as stated in previous discussion, "the term has been in use since the late 1990s and was included in the Collins Concise English Dictionary in 2001"). Certainly do not rename to "David and Victoria Beckham" or any other such construction, Wikipedia:Naming conventions states "article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity". That is "Posh and Becks". --Stormie 23:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Talentless airheads they may be but this term has been used about a billion times in the British press. Nick mallory 23:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read WP:NEO. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. The number of times the tabloid press of England uses the term is irrelevant in the absence of reliable sources that are about the term. Otto4711 03:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, as I have seen no evidence that the phrase "Posh and Becks" has any notability outside the notability of the INDIVIDUALS involved. Sonny and Cher were notable AS "Sonny and Cher", mainly because of their variety show. What have David Beckham and Posh Spice done AS A DUO that merits keeping this article? Wikipedia is not a pop culture dictionary. K. Scott Bailey 18:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The phrase is included in the 2001 Collins Concise English Dictionary. It is Cockney rhyming slang as well as being a widely used British phrase in its own right (see article references). Wikipedia should include notable popular culture encyclopedic entries. — Jonathan Bowen 23:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link fixed. Maybe I should have worded that a bit differently. The existence of the joint biography establishes the couple as being notable as a couple, not just individually. That justifies having an article about them. To decide on the name of the article WP:MOSBIO#Names says the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known. The book title is one piece of evidence that they are more commonly known as a couple as Posh and Becks rather than David and Victoria Beckham. Phil Bridger 00:33, 9 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Posh_and_Becks_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1305599797"