Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Perfect 10 models

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 of the debate was no consensus. howch e ng {chat} 19:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Perfect 10 models

Whatever Perfect 10 is, this list is pointless and unencyclopædic; it's simply a (very long) list of women's names. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article is a list of models who have appeared in Perfect 10 magazine.

Delete — just to make things clear. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree -- someone seems to put in quite a lot of effort into this for a completely useless result. AnonMoos 17:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is useless about users being able to find examples of people who modeled for this magazine? Kappa 17:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, better than a category. Kappa 17:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not better that a category, if one is even needed. Paul Carpenter 17:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inherently POV. Durova 17:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What? Kappa 17:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete original research and listcruft of absolutely no conceivable encyclopaedic merit whatsoever. The fact that almost none of them are linked surely tells us all we need to know about the importance of this subject! Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Um how on earth is this orginal research? Kappa 17:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because I can't find this list anywhere other than in the magazine itself (i.e., as a non-subscriber, nowhere). OK, so that's WP:V not WP:NOR. But in any case, it is listcruft. All it tells us is the names of women who have appeared in a soft-porn magazine. Do you really think Britannica would include that if only it wasn't paper? I sure as hell don't. This is "indiscriminate information" per WP:ISNOT. I don't buy the comparison with Playboy lists either because Playboy is a household name and in the 60s and 70s was much more than just a wank mag, it carried short stories by some of the greats of Science Fiction, for instance, so a list of people other than models who appeared in Playboy would actually be interesting in a way that this list simply is not, and if the models list is what you want to go by, here's a quick reality check: consider who is the Marilyn Monroe de nos jours, and see if you can find her in this list. Playboy has featured Marilyn Monroe, Jayne Mansfield and others; in this list I can't even find anyone I've heard of, let alone a household name - like I said above, almost none of these women are notable enough to have their own articles. There is nothing in this list, not even trivia, which adds in any way to the sum of human knowledge either about these women or about the magazine, and anything encyclopaedic which was added would probably be unverifiable anyway. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not even one model you've heard of, let alone a noteable one? If you haven't heard of Marisa Miller, that's not a problem with the Perfect 10 models entry. Lack of personal familiarity with the subject should not be a reason for deletion. Additionally, because you could not verify the list does not make it unverifiable. All appropriate links have been provided. Finally, don't assume that there aren't more models listed with entries at Wikipedia. It's a long list, and models are still being checked. In some cases, model entries may need to be created. Most models on the Penthouse list still don't have entries of their own, and it has been in existence since May of last year. Patience please. --Alsayid 01:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not POV, and not original research. It is a list of models who have appeared in the magazine, and follows the same pattern as other long-standing Wikipedia entries, such as the Penthouse models, and Playboy models 1953-1959, 1960-1969, 1970-1979, 1980-1989, 1990-1999, 2000-present lists. --Alsayid 17:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Come on people. Try actually reading what the list is about before voting. It is not POV or original research. --Maitch 19:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although it may need to be renamed to list of models who have appeared in Perfect 10 magazine, to be clear. --King of All the Franks 19:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising. Calsicol 19:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not advertising. Please check other long-standing entries of the same nature. --Alsayid 20:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Is Perfect 10 even in the same league as Penthouse/Playboy in terms of notability? I suppose this list might have some interest to somebody, somewhere. I'm going to pass. — RJH 19:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not hardly. It is famous (for some values of famous) for a precedent-setting court ruling, but not for the magazine itself, the content, or controversy surrounding people who choose to appear in it, so inclusion is not noteworthy in the way it might be for Playboy. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems like a legitimate list of models who have appeared in this magazine, I guess, though all I know about the mag is what I've read at Perfect 10. To avoid the type of confusion seen above, could possibly Perfect 10 and this article be renamed Perfect 10 magazine and Perfect 10 magazine models? Crunch 19:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft. Otherwiswe we're going to see a whole bunch of porncruft articles on NN models. Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 21:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Merovingian's suggested tweak to the article. P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 22:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is obviously not advertising, not POV or original research, and it is a very comprehensive list. Carioca 22:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent, but I recommend some sort of guideline be established before someone starts suggesting we run lists of models who have appeared in, say, Hustler or Score. 23skidoo 03:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. While this is a very comprehensive list, it borders on stepping on the toes of what Wikipedia is not. Then again, we have more general lists as well (i.e. List of big-bust models and performers and List of female porn stars. In fact, there really isn't any criteria for lists such as these, so perhaps we should define some? (Also, should the article be kept, I agree with User:Merovingian on the fact that it should be renamed, for clarity.) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 03:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but it must be renamed to be more specific. Grandmasterka 04:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- title could be confusing, but I get it. Reasonable subject for a list. - Longhair 07:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Lists of Playboy Playmates I can see, as they typically can get legitimate favourable mainstream exposure (especially in their hometown area). Penthouse Pets I can argue should be considered in the same category, as Penthouse strived for many years to be the equal to Playboy. Perfect 10?? I'm sorry, but to most people that's just another skin mag. The pictures may be of higher quality, and the ladies certainly are very attractive. However, if the list is to be kept, it should be renamed for clarity. Tabercil 22:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- For the sake of accuracy, I'll have to disagree with the above categorization. Penthouse magazine is and has been much more "skin mag" oriented, as it has shown explicit sex scenes, urination, etc. Perfect 10 pictorials are topless and artistic nude. A number of P10 models have received "legitimate" exposure, many working as mainstream models and some appearing on television. Additionally, Playboy Special Editions is just a skin mag by any measure, with no articles whatsoever, many editions focusing on college girls or amateurs entirely, but that list exists as well. There are also the lists given by Joe Beaudoin Jr. to keep in mind. The Perfect 10 models list represents neither the most hardcore nor the most niche interest of already accepted model lists, and compliments the main Perfect 10 entry. --Alsayid 06:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as serious listcruft. At least it's not full of redlinks and doesn't particularly encourage random people to create random nn-bios. Stifle 00:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Alsayid's rationale. Olessi 03:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft Incognito 00:52, 19 January 2006 (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.