Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sex symbols (2)

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 delete. Mailer Diablo 07:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of sex symbols[edit]

The article is inherently POV ("This is a subjective list") and thus inherently unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. This list is both.

There was a previous AFD about a month ago that was 10-7 in favor of delete. Of the 7 voting to keep the list, two gave silly reasons. Four said that it needed to be trimmed substantially. It hasn't been and thus, it should be reconsidered for deletion.

See also discussion of a related AFD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_nymphets_and_faunlets BigDT 06:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator BigDT 06:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Exploding Boy 06:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "This is a subjective list..." WP:NPOV violation. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete inherent POv.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure POV. Normally a renom is bad, but in this case two keepers conditioned their vote, saying it should be limited to those that cited a reference saying they were sex symbols. Another wanted it limited to truly famoous celebs. That hasn't happened, and likely never will. Such lists just grow endlessly, without individual cites that are needed. --Rob 08:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, inherently problematic, fails our WP:NPOV policy. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inherently non-NPOV. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
abstain It may have to be deleted if no objective criteria is established, such as "often referred to as a sex symbole in the press". But its no more inherently POV than Category:Terrorism, which I once argued for the deletion of on another project. :) JeffBurdges 11:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no objective criteria, and I don't see how there possibly could be. Irredeemably POV. Fan1967 12:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ProhibitOnions 12:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize and delete. Lists are better than categories when they invite a bit of commentary on some of the entries; just names here. It seems just about every actor or actress is a sex symbol for someone. (Am I the only one who finds Margaret Hamilton attractive?) Smerdis of Tlön 14:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are. Try googling for "Grotbags" - now there was a fine figure of a woman. Hrrrnnnnn.... Oh, sorry, where am I? The list is POV, so please delete. But sexily. Vizjim 14:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are NPOV lists that serve similar purposes, such as the FHM lists, where we cite specific sources. But a generic list, without citing "who says they're sex symbols" is POV, and, as Smerdis says, potentially endless. (Hmm, Margaret Hamilton...) AnonEMouse 14:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, will never be a NPOV list, unencyclopedic in nature. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OK magazine and wikis should never mix. H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 15:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:OR Crum375 17:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, and may it never rise again. Fluit 17:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hopelessly POV and already covered by a category. If this lost an AFD vote as noted by the nominator, why is it still here, or did someone recreate it? 23skidoo 21:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A 10-7 vote usually won't quite do it. The rule of thumb is 70%, or it's considered "no consensus". Fan1967 02:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NPOV, and also for including Jordan Knight. Is that really the sort of thing we want to encourage here on Wikipedia? --Lee Bailey 21:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Osomec 22:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Scientizzle 22:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I have tried to clean up and prune this article to no avail. Very POV and filled with personal favorites - often people I never even heard of. ExRat 08:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. Paddles 15:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as is just a few people's opinion. I disagree with at least a quarter of the people on that page. Mrjeff 17:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You're doing better than me. There's at least that many I've never even heard of. Of the ones I do know, I disagree with at least a third, and I can think of a few dozen I would include who've been left off. (Hmmmm, Margaret Hamilton...) Fan1967 20:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move or archive or something It's an interesting list that should be kept somewhere for nice reading, but not worthy of being such an article --mboverload 20:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, listcruft. Pavel Vozenilek 20:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless someone decides to take his/her time adding a reference for every name to show they are considered sex symbols by a third party and not just Wikipedia editors. -- ReyBrujo 02:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See also Category:Sex symbols, which was deleted for the same reasons. -Sean Curtin 03:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per most reasons above Mad Jack O'Lantern 20:53, 12 May 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.