User talk:Flyer22 Frozen/TomKat 1

Necessary?

Is this really necessary?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.132.98 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's relevant, yes. And given the notable impact that this couple has had on the world, I'd say that this article is relevant, and it can certainly be expanded on how this couple became a supercouple/the media's fascination with them, some (or preferably a lot of) detail on this that is not included in their individual articles. Flyer22 23:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, think of the big impact - that is... ZERO impact. You are mistaking press coverage for notability ;) --Echosmoke 01:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I feel that you're undermining the two. I am not. And press coverage often constitutes notability for articles on Wikipedia. Flyer22 01:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, really, this couple has not had an impact on the world? Completely false. This couple is not some regular celebrity couple. It's not like, oh, they happened to get more press coverage and that made the world fascinated with them. Also, just in case it's presumed, I am not a fan of this couple. However, I certainly don't hate them either, and their impact...I do not deny. Flyer22 02:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These people have NO relevance at all. How does anything about them effect anything in the world, besides tabloid coverage? Not at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.50.47 (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If these people have no relevance at all, then there would not be so much mania surrounding them, even when outside of the United States, and people would not have acted as though their baby was the Second Coming (both theirs and Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's baby). That's pretty much an effect on the world. Flyer22 (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a vandalism target

I'm surprised by all of the positive and helpful contributions that come into this page. I assumed it would eventually have to be protected due to constant vandalism, as this ocuple is very "high profile", but every time I check diffs from my watchlist for vandalism on TomKat, it's a constructive edit. Kudos to all who help improve this article! нмŵוτн τ 18:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean. But I'm still waiting to see if it does become more of a vandalism target. Flyer22 (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The truth is that this couple is irrelevant. Article should be deleted. Not even vandals like me like it.66.201.166.212 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so irrelevant that you dropped by to state how irrelevant the couple is. Truth is...people acted (and probably still act) like this couple consists of two gods. And that's not true of every celebrity couple, and thus is not the definition of irrelevant. Flyer22 (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, I'm still not vandalizing the article. It is irrelevant. I stumbled upon it while searching for dangerous cults information... to vandalize. 66.201.166.212 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's irrelevant to you, you say. I say you're tempted, which is why you came to this talk page. I mean, hey, some vandals like to vandalize talk pages. And your logic for what is relevant based on the fact of vandalism counts is off. Either way, if you want to vandalize something here on Wikipedia or have, I'll have fun reverting you. Good day. Flyer22 (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEO

This article needs to be merged with the main article Tom Cruise, as per WP:NEO ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure. I mean, this article is about the couple, not the term. Although, I would rather it be about both. The Posh and Becks article, for example, is about both. I will be expanding that article later, as I will expand this one as well (if it's not deleted or merged). The Posh and Becks article survived two deletion debates because most editors found it notable enough. One could argue that the phrase Posh and Becks is not a neologism, since "the term has been in use since the late 1990s and was included in the Collins Concise English Dictionary in 2001", but I point out that Wikipedia does not say that we cannot have articles on neologisms. It prefers that we do not, but also gives examples in cases were this can be allowed. This may be the case for this article, which still needs more improvement. Flyer22 (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to have this article, when the material can easily fit in the main article about Cruise. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That argument did not hold up with the Posh and Becks article, and if this article is expanded to where it explains the fascination with this couple and perhaps the term, it should not hold up here either. This article allows depth concerning what has made this couple, well, super. Or rather it addresses it. I mean, it will, something their individual articles leave out. And if it were to be included in both of their articles, would only add to redundancy. I'm going to see how much I can improve this article to show it as distinct from the Tom Cruise article and the Katie Holmes article. I was not planning on doing that now, because I am busy with other matters, but since it seems that this article could be nominated for deletion at any moment, I might as well. Flyer22 (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing this article. And in this case, the text can be easily accommodated in Tom Cruise. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained above why this article may be able to stand on its own after expansion and showing it as distinct. If that can happen, then it shouldn't be put into the Tom Cruise article...or the Katie Holmes article, for that matter. Flyer22 (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as mentioned and not responded to earlier, why do you say move it to the Cruise article? Why the male and not the female? There is no reason it should go in his and not hers. To be non-sexist, would have to put it in both, & we can't have all of this information in two articles. That would be ridiculous, redundant, and impractical. How would the edit histories line up? And the versions on the two articles would be different and impossible to be kept consistent with each other. Bad idea. These two people are looked at by America and especially the media as one entity: one person, hence the joint article on their lives together. нмŵוτн τ 22:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, per WP:BIO, Suri warrants an article of her own, I just realized. нмŵוτн τ 22:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No she doesn't- being born doesn't give notability, and neither does having famous parents. She can have her own article once she becomes notable in her own right, if she ever does. J Milburn (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with notability not being inherited. That's not what I'm talking about here. WP:BIO states that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,3 and independent of the subject." This wasn't the case right away, as most of the sources would have been about the pregnancy in general, not specifically her. However, as she's gotten a little older, controversy has surrounded her. There were rumors that she was going to be the new model for Baby Gap, for example, and there were many article talking about that. It's not my opinion that she meets WP:BIO standards, but per the standards themselves. If people disagree, maybe the guideline should be rewritten. нмŵוτн τ 00:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pure, Unadulterated Rubbish

Speedy burn to the ground and scatter the ashes. -- Of no value whatever; non-notable. — Xiong 熊 talk * 16:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not if it can be expanded to show how the couple itself is notable. And, again, I'm no fan of this couple, but they are a notable couple...and not just because they are celebrities, considering not all or even most celebrity couples garner this much world-wide fascination. "Pure, Unadulterated Rubbish"? It never ceases to amaze me some editors' detest for anything popular culture on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. But don't scatter the ashes--launch them into space to be with Xenu. Not valuable. Merge into Cruise's and Holmes' pages if anything. This stuff doesn't belong in WP, really. This is an encyclopedia, not the National Enquirer.--Aresef (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, what, an encyclopedia can't include pop culture? Disagree that this article is not valuable. Just because we have an article on a celebrity supercouple doesn't make it The National Enquirer. And merging all of this into both of their individual articles would be extremely redundant. Merging into only one would be silly. There are people who may not find the article about Anakin Skywalker valuable when his character history can just be summed up in the films' articles, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have an article about him. Flyer22 (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which stuff in which article? In whose article would Suri be? What about the joint stuff... should it be put in both of their articles, being redundant? нмŵוτн τ 03:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too close for deletion, switching to merge. This has some valuable information, but I don't believe there is any reason to keep it as its own article. The title and style is pandering and unencyclopedic. I say merge this article with either Katie Holmes or Tom Cruise (or both), and then make this page redirect to the TomKat section on their page. Slugmaster (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but you didn't mention which information (about both of them) goes in which page? And where would TomKat redirect? Which person? It's no more baout one than the other, so it's impossible to choose one. нмŵוτн τ 16:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable topic, no reason that it cannot stand.

I don't see how the title of this article is unencyclopedic or pandering. It's no different than if the term TomKat were entered into a dictionary like the term Posh and Becks has been. It makes no sense to delete this article just because of its pop culture name, and when this article can be expanded to be more valuable than what it is. In fact, its pop culture name is more reason the article shouldn't be deleted than reason that it should be. They are notable as a couple, and this article addresses that. Just because they haven't saved any cats from being stuck in trees or anything of the sort as a couple doesn't mean that they are not a notable couple. This is not any regular celebrity couple, as this article touches on already. With some tweaks and more expansion, this can be a really great article and completely distinct of their individual articles. It's already somewhat distinct as it is. I say let it grow. Flyer22 (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at this article again, since I visited this talk page before seeing these recent improvements. Anyway, нмŵוτн τ has already made this article more encyclopedic in tone, and it's just been expanded further. Definitely an article that should be kept and is worthy of an encyclopedic entry. Flyer22 (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain myself, lest there be misunderstanding. I don't argue that this so-called article be deleted for its title; let's label shit, shit. Nor am I adamantly opposed to pop culture in general. I tolerate Pokemon, though I'm glad to see that my suggestion was finally taken and the army of meaningless ripoffs merged and deleted. No, I say that this topic has no value whatever, on any level.

Cruise is an actor -- rich and popular, yes, but still an actor. His job is to imitate or pretend, to simulate. This has not the importance of, say, a common emergency room physician, whose job it is to save lives and relieve suffering. Granted, Cruise entertains -- not well, perhaps, but with some ability. Yet even as an actor he is poor. He is not merely poor in skill; he is poor as a human being, lacking depth and perspective. Even Leonardo DiCaprio, who previously held the chair of pretty face idiot, has matured somewhat, while Cruise has merely gotten old and still has no more dimension than a sheet of paper. Add to this the fact that Cruise is a Scientology nutcase and you are forced to see that anything he might say unscripted is utterly worthless chatter.

Next, consider Holmes, who has never done any work of quality -- a professional cipher, at best a pretty woman (of which there are more than are notable). Her marriage to Cruise is the most prominent item on her resume. It is impossible to gain any insight into the human condition by gazing into this shallow saucer.

Unite these two and -- as is entirely routine -- an offspring results. They have done absolutely nothing else together of even slight interest. You cannot convince me that jumping on a couch on teevee is deviant, interesting, unusual, noteworthy, or in any way deserving of discussion (and in any case, the two did not do this together). Now, if the man doused himself with gasoline and set himself on fire, yes, I might watch that and want to know why. The child herself is an infant, has done nothing whatever that rates a single glyph, anywhere outside of her parents' hearts.

The single notable phenomenon which this article raises is common to a great range of media "personalities" -- people generally without any real personality who have good press agents and a talent for high-profile temper tantrums. Paris Hilton comes to mind. Such people milk the publicity industry to create a spurious flurry of interest. In Cruise's case, I grant that his career has been sufficient to grant him notability on his own; I'll tolerate Holmes on the same level as South Fremont High School of St. Anthony, Idaho -- this is touted as an encyclopedia, so let it be encyclopedic.

The couple (or family), however, is nothing apart from its members. The words on this page, to whatever extent they do not apply to, or cannot be merged into, individual articles has value only inasmuch as the topic of mediacruft is explored, examined, and discussed.

Merge into Famous for being famous and obliterate with a WMD. — Xiong 熊 talk * 06:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bias. Xiong, all I saw in your very long list of "reasons" that this article should be deleted is your detest for "these types" of celebrities. This article cannot be merged into Famous for being famous, because these two aren't famous for being famous, and the term TomKat certainly doesn't and wouldn't fit there. I'm sure that your comments about how loony Cruise supposedly is doesn't belong on this article's talk page, but I don't have time to worry about that. I'm not trying to convince you about anything concerning this article. And with your feelings for Cruise and Holmes, I wouldn't try to. Flyer22 (talk) 07:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You simply cannot compare Tom Cruise to Paris Hilton (who first became famous for simply being a wealthy socialite from a powerful family). Tom is famous for making dozens of blockbusters for over 15 years. He only became "infamous" (in your opinion) in the past couple of years, and he has continued to make hit movies since then. Katie is famous from starring on a hit television show that was on TV for 5 years. They both reached notability for their acting abilities. нмŵוτн τ 15:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you deliberately misconstrue my opinion, or merely misunderstand? I agree that Cruise is a notable, encyclopedic subject; I have so said. I have even conceded that Holmes is worthy of inclusion in a comprehensive resource. And I believe that the subject of incestuous media frenzy is more important than both together -- if there is any value whatever to this page, it is in how it casts light on that. Therefore, salvage what is possible.

But I maintain that there is absolutely no significance in the fact that two actors have reproduced or contracted to cohabitate. It is not a phenomenon, an event, nor in any way notable. Certainly, I can pick up a supermarket tabloid and learn what color shoes the man has bought Friday; for all I know, every yellow sheet in the bin devotes pages to the fluff. That does not make it encyclopedic. This is pure trash. — Xiong 熊 talk * 12:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pure trash to you. No one here is deliberately misconstruing your opinion. It certainly is your opinion. I'm not a fan of this couple, but I am not so biased against them that I cannot admit that they are a phenomenon and are notable as a couple. You say that they aren't, that's fine. We get it. Your opinion. Flyer22 (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try to not let your personal opinions affect your encyclopedia editing. нмŵוτн τ 19:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My dislike of these two people is irrelevant. I worship Steven Hawking and I adore Sigourney Weaver; but if I discovered that they were having sex, with or without a license and with or without an associated media feeding frenzy, I would not consider that a third, notable topic had been created.

Please explain to this old fool what his opinions obscure. In what way is the "subject" of this article notable? Indeed, explain to me in what way the subject exists as an actual thing -- something to which you might point. That is, if I saw TC and KH strolling down the street, I might well point at them and say, "There go TC and KH." I would not point and say, "There goes a new thing, a thing apart from either of its constituents." Please remove this barrier to my comprehension. — Xiong 熊 talk * 06:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is what's remarkable about this couple. They have become one entity. It's not "there goes Tom and Katie", it's "there goes "TomKat". It's quite peculiar and unique in the current moment. нмŵוτн τ 16:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you, as I believe the British would put it, taking a piss on me? Would you need a chainsaw to separate the two? When you say, ...it's "there goes "TomKat", what really do you mean? What is it? And if "this" is unique -- in this or any moment -- what is meant by List of supercouples? Or is "this" really not unique at all but merely more interesting than the empty lives of readers of supermarket tripe?

Tell me again what these two have achieved of note as a couple. I must have missed that. — Xiong 熊 talk * 07:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It's the narcissism of small differences..." said Benjamin Zimmer, a linguistic anthropologist at the University of Pennsylvania.

"They want to have a nickname for the couples because they feel as if they are part of the stars' extended group of family and friends," said Ms. Fuller, who oversees Star magazine.

TomKat ... seems to have become a shorthand joke for their outlandishly public relationship.

"Overexposure makes people react in strange ways," Mr. Zimmer said. "Maybe that's why you create a word that sounds like some kind of mutant four-legged beast."

-- Damien Cave, NY Times — Xiong 熊 talk * 07:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that your feelings for these two stars is irrelevant at all to your feelings concerning this article. But oh well. What is meant by List of supercouples is a list of supercouples. As for TomKat or any supercouple, saving cats from trees and starving children in Africa is not what defines a supercouple. It can make one, sure, but is not some set criteria for being considered one. When you ask what have they (TomKat) done that is notable, I get that that's what you want...some type of act such as that. But to answer your question, no, they aren't like literary supercouple Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir (another notable couple listed in the List of supercouples article). TomKat can only be notable as TomKat, and that happens to be the fascination surrounding them...which does not happen to every celebrity couple that comes along. People take interest in these couples not because their lives are empty (well, some might, not all) but rather because these couples fascinate them so thoroughly, sometimes on a world-wide scale. And thanks for that other source you cited above. It will be a great addition to this article. Perhaps, a criticism section is in order. Flyer22 (talk) 08:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a) In response to Xiong's question, "What have they done?" Well, they took over the media. They've achieved a media fascination that was probably thought to be unachievable.

b) A criticism section would be a wonderful addition. There are tons of people with negative things to say not only them as a couple, but people that are angry that others care about them so much. нмŵוτн τ 17:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you agree that they have done nothing as a unit. You say they are, literally, famous for being famous -- and for nothing else. Non-notable.

WP:BULL. — Xiong 熊 talk * 06:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, for possible guesses as to why TomKat's notable, see TomKat#Reasons for popularity. нмŵוτн τ 18:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of which boil down to the incestuous relationship between agents who have stupid clients and media who have stupid readers, neither of which care if there is any substance behind the glitter. It all comes down to a man with a hard-on standing naked in front of a mirror, photographing his erection by the glare of a spotlight, shouting that it is, indeed, very large.

If Cruise and Holmes had, together, jumped up and down on a couch in public, I would not find it notable but at least you would have a slender thread with which to hang yourself. You have produced nothing. — Xiong 熊 talk * 05:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whether or not the people who made them famous are "stupid", they're still famous. There's a lot of stuff that I think is stupid on Wikipedia... but just because it doesn't affect my everyday life does not mean that it isn't notable. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Thanks for your opinion, and we'll take any tips from you to better this article. Cheers, нмŵוτн τ 16:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]