555:
characters alone. If a couple page is deleted because it should be addressed as part of the character pages, all couples pages should be put up for deletion and I don't think that is what would best serve the public interested in these topics. There is a precedent set with other pages for specific couples so that would suggest that there is a definite interest in a page like this. I think even more so than other couples, this page is of interest because of the controversy associated with this couple that is continually disccussed on message boards, on official network sites, in soap opera magazines and by network executives. One of the show's executives has admitted that there is a large and growing audience for this couple so I think this information is definitely of interest to people and should not be duplicated on the individual character pages. The information provided pertains only to the article subjects as a couple and not to them individually. The formatting can be improved upon and if it is felt there is too much discussion of storyline, that can be edited as well.
718:
speak. I think the "fan base of the other couple" is just trying to ruin everything on the internet that speaks of these to characters together. And a respectable web site like
Knowledge (XXG) should not give voice to this vicious antics of a few disgruntle fans of other pairings on Days of Our Lives. These characters have been a couple and broke up so that argument is not valid. I know tons of people who have enjoyed this page on Knowledge (XXG) and it has served its purpose and will continue to do so if left up. There have been numerous characters outside of Ej and Sami that have said they know EJ loves Sami and it is cleary obvious to everyone or "the other" fan base would not be so upset over this page. There are considered the "Luke and Laura" of Days and have so much chemistry together that their fan base has growen so rapidly the "powers that be" are standing up and taking notice. Deleting this page now will only cause a head ache to the people that put articles up here because they will enviably be putting it back up.
213:: Although I very much agree with you about not all couples deserve their own page. But, I don't believe their relationship can be compared to Chelsea's and Nick's. As their story arc is very weak in comparison, IMO. The DiMera's and Brady's have a long history. Plus Sami's been on the show forever, and now the new thing about "Colleen"? I really don't like the relationship, but I really dislike Lucas too. The EJ and Sami relationship is more interesting and is a very prominent part of the soap right now. (Edit conflict) I don't think it should go into Sami's and Lucas' page, but thought about putting it in Sami's page, but it is kinda long already. <shrug: -->
186:: I agree with you that they "could be" a good couple but at the moment they're not and so don't yet deserve their own page. Knowledge (XXG) doesn't have entries for all couples in soap history - look at all Chelsea and Nick for example. They're a fairly important couple at the moment but don't have their own page because they haven't been around for very long. EJ's been on the show for a year and EJ and Sami have not been through enough to warrant their own article. As for Sami showing positive feelings - only today we watched her weep because she found out her children were EJs! Perhaps a section in the Lucas and Sami article?
430:: I think Flyer22 has made the points that I would make in support of keeping this article and I would just like to voice my agreement and support for those points. EJ and Sami were most definitely a couple for several months and the potential of them to become a couple again is referenced across many neutral media. They have recently been referenced as a potential couple in an article in Soap Opera Weekly comparing them to Luke and Laura from General Hospital and in a current issue of Soap Opera Digest where an executive producer of the show acknowledges the large and growing support for EJ and Sami as a couple.
442:: There is also a moral outrage by fans of EJ and Sami's "rival" couple, Lucas and Sami, because they believe that the show is heading back towards a romantic relationship between EJ and Sami. This moral outrage has manifested itself as a campaign in which fans of Lucas and Sami are trying to convince the show not to go forward with this storyline. Soap Opera Weekly has even mentioned this campaign in their magazine so it would appear that all fans are in agreement that the show is heading towards putting EJ and Sami back together.
680:: This article is a factual overview of a great storyline currently on Days and to delete it to satisfy LUMI (Lucas and Sammi fans) would be an injustice as well as evidence of the fact that Knowledge (XXG) cannot be an encyclopedia which would otherwise be a factual restating of culture: EJAMI- EJ and Sami are part of our culture and part of Days of Our Lives. The only question is whether Knowledge (XXG) has the guts to remain true to the vision of an online encyclopedia or cave in to the ramblings of one group.
608:
think the section "cultural impact" is very well written and discusses the parrallels between Luke and Laura as well as EJ and Sami. The rape part of the story has been a huge issue and I think that it is notable to have in the article. True EJ has only been on Day for a year and some but he's also been a major part of story for the lenght of time and then some. Yes they might not have any story a year or so later but I still think that the contents of this article is important and very much relevant. -Skinwalker
699:
bad and about the continuing history between them given that it is still not known whether EJ is the father of
Samantha's unborn children. The facts in the article are presented in a neutral way and even though it only spans a year, the history between these 2 characters is very complex and interesting. The bottom line as I see it, the article is factual, provides information that is unique to this article and it provides information that is of interest to many people who watch this particular soap opera.
506:
instance, mentioned within the characters of that couple's articles. Also, this type of couple, such as EJ and Sami, causes edit warring more so than a typical popular couple, because this couple has a rival couple, and adding certain details in Sami's article regarding EJ, or adding certain details in EJ's article regarding Sami...can result in a tiresome edit war between the rival fan-bases, more so than usual. The format of this article can always be improved.
694:: This couple is most definitely notable and has been talked about more than many couples with years and years of history. One of the characters has only a year of history on the show but the fact that he is considered as popular if not more so as a suitor for a veteran character is also notable. As far as "crystal-balling" - there is nothing that projects into the future in the article whatsoever. These 2 characters
666:, I get your point, and I agree that when it comes to soap opera couples, only notable soap opera couples should be included on Knowledge (XXG), but the controversy surrounding this couple is something notable that has happened between this couple, to the point where the producers of this show have apparently issued a statement and or statements surrounding this couple's popularity, despite this couple's controversy.
570:
separate page. The next young couple considered worthy of a separate article are Shawn and Belle, who have been on the show for 8 years compared to EJ and Sami's one. The whole of this article reads like an introduction to a main topic - I keep waiting for it to get to the point! Nothing particularly worthy of note has happened between EJ and Sami
519:. Essentially I agree with radiantbutterfly and cannot add very much but I believe this article should be kept. It is a commentary on society that an article on the internet can cause such pettyness and controversy. Edit warring and heated debates about something that should be enjoyable. Regardless, I think the article should be kept.
383:, which, of course, means that it's okay, but not tagged as good anymore. Still, there are articles on Knowledge (XXG) that are tagged as good, in which have a plot length not that different than the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article. As I stated before, this article's plot summary can be edited down, if absolutely necessary.
698:
a couple (contrary to the original statement calling for the article to be deleted) and remain a fan favourite pairing despite many seemingly insurmountable obstacles and it is this article that will convey the information about both the controversy and about the fan reaction to this couple, good and
148:
Delete as Sami and EJ are not and have never been a couple. At the moment only supercouples seem to have their own pages and whilst there is no denying that EJ and Sami have some support amongst the fans, they are not actually a couple. Even if they were
Knowledge (XXG) is not the place to list every
650:
Comment. There is no "crystal balling" in this article. Only facts have been presented. No one has said they WILL be together but they have caused a great deal of discussion and are popular enough to have spurred a subcouple played by the two actors who portray EJ and Sami. That in and of itself
505:
The storyline is naturally addressed. And a
Cultural impact section of the couple can be addressed in articles such as these, as it is with this article... specifically about this couple's popularity and or controversy. It would be redundant to have a Cultural impact section regarding a couple, for
717:
I say keep the page. There is a well informative page and a huge asset to people who are looking for information on this matter. I think it would be a huge injustice to delete this page. These characters are in one of the hugest story lines of the summer and there fan base is growing rapidly as we
607:
I think it should be kept. At this point I don't think the it can be denied that the EJ and Sami storyline is one of the biggest storylines on the soap ever since
Decemember of 2006. It is a notable article and just looking at all the soap press their storylines have gotten over the past months. I
360:
Other than that, this article does provide a
Cultural impact section, in which can be expanded on. I'm not a fan of this couple. I do, however, see that this article is better referenced and lower in plot summary than some other soap opera couple articles that I will be working on improving while
339:
So is anyone who's saying "keep" on the basis of the supposed importance of the couple planning on addressing the fact that this article is nothing but a plot summary of the characters' relationship? Anyone at all? Or is this going to be a popularity contest? Just wondering if actual policies and
554:
As pointed out, the individual character pages would be better served by remaining completely free from commentary on these characters as a couple especially in a case where such a heated fan war exists between rival couples. The individual character pages should be about the characters and the
569:
But relationships are part of a character's history and unless they're particularly notable, it's fine to include them in their character page, as happens with most characters. Only if a couple is particularly notable and has a lot of history together is it necessary for them to have their own
264:
they don't warrant an entry. If the writers do nothing more with the characters (which is very possible) will you still think in a year's time that EJ and Sami deserved their own article? And whilst they aren't directly called a supercouple, there is a link to the supercouple entry under "See
355:
article that is just as long in plot, if not somewhat longer in plot, in which is referred to as an article in which editors should look to for how to write good articles on fiction at
Knowledge (XXG). Thus, I don't even feel that the plot summary of this article is that
332:. EJ and Sami are not called directly a supercouple. There characters have not really been a "couple" but they do have alot of charater history with eachother. They are an important part of the current Days of Our Lives storyline and also in the Brady vs. Dimera Feud.
703:
In response to the comment about the duplication between the character pages and the couple page, I agree that the individual character pages should be updated to remove reference to the history included in the couple page with a re-direction to the couple page.
259:
at the moment. I personally don't think it's necessary to have an article on a minor couple (and in terms of time length they were very minor) based on what might happen. There's no proof that anything more will happen with EJ and Sami, and based on what has
162:: It's a very prominent story line between EJ and Sami, and the evil DiMeras and Lucas' evil mother. The story line is always evolving between the two. Especially now with the pregnancy of Sami by EJ and possibly the other twin as Lukas'. EJ and Sami
501:. An article on a popular couple allows more room to address that particlular couple, the couple's history/creation as to how the writers and producers came about telling the romance of that couple, which can eventually be added to this article.
412:
I'm aware of that policy. And that's not my justification for why this article should remain. I already gave my justification for why this article should remain, outside of good articles, which are not crap, with plot summaries longer than this
478:. If we want to have a single article about the couple, and redirects from the two individual pages to the page about the couple, fine, but there isn't any justification to have two lengthy individual bios
87:
239:, while most other soap opera couple articles on Knowledge (XXG) are not as of yet, although I'm going to get around to improving each and every one of those articles as such and being a part of
533:
466:
where all of the information about the relationship could be placed (and should already be in place, so there is potentially massive duplication if this article is kept:
141:
114:
109:
118:
101:
166:
been a couple, but they broke up. Now it is obvious that EJ still has strong feelings for Sami, and Sami is shown to have more positive feelings for EJ...
149:
popular couple on a show, only the particularly notable ones, which Sami and EJ are not (particularly as EJ has only been on the show for a year).
240:
624:
17:
590:
281:
202:
235:. Due to their rabid popularity, they have an article as to being a notable couple, and potential supercouple. Since this article
105:
722:
708:
684:
670:
655:
645:
559:
543:
523:
510:
491:
446:
434:
421:
403:
387:
365:
344:
322:
302:
247:
219:
176:
153:
71:
417:
Plot summary which can always be edited down is not a good enough reason to delete this article, which is also referenced.
396:
170:. This could be a Luke and Laura type of couple. EJ and Sami are one of the more interesting relationships on the show.
740:
36:
97:
77:
488:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
620:
612:
578:
269:
190:
319:
736:
705:
652:
616:
586:
556:
443:
431:
277:
198:
582:
273:
194:
150:
520:
681:
638:
719:
484:
351:
The plot summary can be edited down. And there are good articles on
Knowledge (XXG), such as the
333:
315:
214:
171:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
735:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
372:
352:
459:
295:
64:
642:
400:
341:
299:
667:
507:
418:
384:
362:
311:
244:
135:
540:
468:
49:
474:
731:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
482:
a lengthy combined article that covers the same ground. --
131:
127:
123:
233:
aren't directly called a supercouple in this article
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
88:Articles for deletion/EJ Wells and Samantha Brady
743:). No further edits should be made to this page.
340:guidelines are going to be a factor here...
8:
637:. Completely absurd, unencyclopaedic, and
399:is not a justification for this article.
532:: This debate has been included in the
243:, I feel that this article should stay.
241:Knowledge (XXG): WikiProject Soap Operas
464:There are already two separate articles
85:
46:no consensus to delete, default to KEEP
318:who both make persuasive arguments. --
651:shows the popularity of the coupling.
460:Knowledge (XXG) is not a crystal ball
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
534:list of Television-related deletions
84:
298:of the two characters' storyline.
24:
1:
379:, but now it seems to have a
98:EJ Wells and Samantha Brady
78:EJ Wells and Samantha Brady
760:
723:02:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
361:here at Knowledge (XXG).
72:20:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
733:Please do not modify it.
709:21:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
685:00:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
671:02:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
656:14:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
646:23:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
560:14:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
544:14:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
524:13:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
511:03:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
492:01:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
447:20:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
435:20:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
422:05:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
404:03:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
388:01:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
366:01:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
345:01:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
323:00:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
303:00:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
248:23:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
220:22:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
177:22:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
154:22:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
257:"potential supercouple"
83:AfDs for this article:
458:. It is policy that
255:But they are only a
397:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
641:fancruft. Cheers,
440:Additional Comment
377:was listed as good
629:
615:comment added by
595:
581:comment added by
546:
537:
336:5:31, 2 July 2007
286:
272:comment added by
218:
207:
193:comment added by
175:
751:
706:Radiantbutterfly
628:
609:
594:
575:
557:Radiantbutterfly
538:
528:
487:
444:Radiantbutterfly
432:Radiantbutterfly
373:Anakin Skywalker
353:Anakin Skywalker
285:
266:
262:already happened
217:
206:
187:
174:
139:
121:
70:
61:
60:
55:
34:
759:
758:
754:
753:
752:
750:
749:
748:
747:
741:deletion review
639:crystal balling
610:
576:
541:John Vandenberg
483:
267:
188:
112:
96:
93:
81:
69:
56:
51:
50:
48:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
757:
755:
746:
745:
727:
726:
701:
700:
688:
687:
674:
673:
659:
658:
648:
631:
630:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
548:
547:
526:
503:
502:
495:
494:
485:John Broughton
452:
451:
450:
449:
415:
414:
409:
408:
407:
406:
391:
390:
358:
357:
348:
347:
337:
326:
325:
320:164.107.222.23
305:
289:
288:
287:
231:. EJ and Sami
225:
224:
223:
222:
180:
179:
146:
145:
92:
91:
90:
82:
80:
75:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
756:
744:
742:
738:
734:
729:
728:
724:
721:
716:
713:
712:
711:
710:
707:
697:
693:
690:
689:
686:
683:
679:
676:
675:
672:
669:
665:
661:
660:
657:
654:
653:65.13.237.254
649:
647:
644:
640:
636:
633:
632:
626:
622:
618:
617:76.106.94.185
614:
606:
603:
602:
592:
588:
584:
580:
573:
568:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
558:
553:
550:
549:
545:
542:
535:
531:
527:
525:
522:
518:
515:
514:
513:
512:
509:
500:
497:
496:
493:
490:
486:
481:
477:
476:
471:
470:
465:
461:
457:
456:Strong delete
454:
453:
448:
445:
441:
438:
437:
436:
433:
429:
426:
425:
424:
423:
420:
411:
410:
405:
402:
398:
395:
394:
393:
392:
389:
386:
382:
378:
374:
370:
369:
368:
367:
364:
354:
350:
349:
346:
343:
338:
335:
334:Perfecttlovee
331:
328:
327:
324:
321:
317:
313:
309:
306:
304:
301:
297:
293:
290:
283:
279:
275:
271:
263:
258:
254:
251:
250:
249:
246:
242:
238:
234:
230:
227:
226:
221:
216:
212:
209:
208:
204:
200:
196:
192:
185:
182:
181:
178:
173:
169:
165:
161:
158:
157:
156:
155:
152:
143:
137:
133:
129:
125:
120:
116:
111:
107:
103:
99:
95:
94:
89:
86:
79:
76:
74:
73:
68:
67:
62:
59:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
732:
730:
714:
702:
695:
691:
677:
663:
634:
611:— Preceding
604:
577:— Preceding
571:
566:
551:
529:
516:
504:
498:
479:
473:
467:
463:
455:
439:
427:
416:
380:
376:
359:
329:
307:
296:plot summary
291:
268:— Preceding
261:
256:
252:
237:is referencd
236:
232:
228:
210:
189:— Preceding
183:
167:
163:
159:
147:
65:
57:
52:
45:
43:
31:
28:
664:Magical mia
583:Magical mia
428:Strong Keep
274:Magical mia
195:Magical mia
151:Magical mia
521:Antigone28
469:Sami Brady
371:Okay, the
737:talk page
682:Allie0416
662:Comment.
643:DWaterson
739:or in a
725:peifgirl
720:Peifgirl
625:contribs
613:unsigned
591:contribs
579:unsigned
552:Comment:
475:EJ Wells
413:article.
401:Otto4711
381:B status
375:article
342:Otto4711
300:Otto4711
282:contribs
270:unsigned
203:contribs
191:unsigned
142:View log
692:Comment
668:Flyer22
567:Comment
508:Flyer22
499:Comment
419:Flyer22
385:Flyer22
363:Flyer22
316:- Jeeny
312:Flyer22
253:Comment
245:Flyer22
215:- Jeeny
211:Comment
184:Comment
172:- Jeeny
115:protect
110:history
635:Delete
292:Delete
265:Also".
119:delete
356:long.
294:as a
168:again
136:views
128:watch
124:links
16:<
715:Keep
696:were
678:Keep
621:talk
605:Keep
587:talk
530:Note
517:Keep
489:(♫♫)
480:plus
472:and
330:Keep
314:and
310:per
308:Keep
278:talk
229:Keep
199:talk
164:have
160:Keep
132:logs
106:talk
102:edit
66:talk
53:Jody
572:yet
539:--
536:.
462:.
140:– (
627:)
623:•
593:)
589:•
284:)
280:•
205:)
201:•
134:|
130:|
126:|
122:|
117:|
113:|
108:|
104:|
619:(
585:(
574:.
276:(
197:(
144:)
138:)
100:(
58:B
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.