Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of supermodels

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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 06:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of supermodels[edit]

Completing an unfinished AfD nomination. The AfD template was added not long after I suggested this very thing on the Supermodel talk page. This list has absolutely no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion of any particular model. In fact, the supermodel article provides little clarity or objectivity as to who or who is not a supermodel (as discussed on its talk page and elsewhere). For those reasons I have no problem completing this nomination and suggesting that it be deleted. Agent 86 23:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. listcruft. Mystache 00:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is why categories exist. Medtopic 00:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Categories are worse than lists where the problem is the verifiability or objectivity of the label. At least with a list, you can explain inclusion or cite sources; if a list can't even be fixed by that, a category absolutely should not be created. Postdlf 00:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, and see this CFD... Postdlf 00:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom Doc 00:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Supermodel is an overused hypester term. Piccadilly 17:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I wavered on this for awhile, but I think it's enough to have an article on the term that can discuss its cultural meaning and application. A list designating who is a supermodel is inevitably POV. When that list is qualified as designating those who "have been described" as supermodels, it just becomes a trivial record of media hype. Postdlf 17:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Postdlf; no chance that such a list would ever be NPOV. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 02:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Delete If no more clearer definition of what qualifies as supermodel emerges at Supermodel which could be applied to this list than delete. If it does, than Categorize Bwithh 07:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete I actually find this page to be useful. The names on the list are who many people, especially those in the industry consider supermodels. For example, the likes of Twiggy, Linda Evangelista, Gisele Bundchen, Gemma Ward, Daria Werbowy, etc.. This page is very useful. Lil Flip246 15:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain why this list is useful, and how it has been determined that "many people, especially those in the industry" consider those listed to be "supermodels"? Postdlf 16:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - This list is useful because it shows who the term supermodel was used for. These models have the qualities as those mentioned in the supermodel article. If we don't have this list, people will just name random models supermodels. For example, Rachel Hunter who is NOT a supermodel. Lil Flip246 03:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Using your example, why not? She's internationally famous, probably has a higher-than-average income, has modelled for Sports Illustrated, Cover Girl, Estee Lauder, Revlon, etc., and has parlayed her modelling into other opportunities in the entertainment industry. As the term "supermodel" is largely made-up, it just shows the problems of trying to have a fixed set of criteria and the inherent subjectivity of the article. Agent 86 17:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You answered neither of my questions. Why is it useful to show for whom the term "supermodel" has been used? And how have you determined (by what research) that those included in the list have the qualities (which qualities, exactly?) mentioned in the supermodel article, and those not included in the list do not have those qualities? Postdlf 23:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term "supermodel" is a bit too fuzzy for my taste, and even if it wasn't, this would be better served by catergories anyhow. RFerreira 21:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. Those in the list fit the description described in the supermodel page. If we don't include this list, we will have everyone using the term loosely on those who Are Not Supermodels like Rachel Hunter and Caprice Bourret. Lil Flip246 17:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Lil Flip, please only "vote" once. You've already been corrected once in this regard. If you have further comments to make, please be clear that it is a comment and not a new "vote" (and please be aware this is not a vote, but a discussion regarding consensus: please read Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Discussion). As an aside, there is no other way to use the term but loosely, because there is no set definitive criteria for being a supermodel. It's entirely subjective. Agent 86 18:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The definition and standards of a supermodel are explained in the supermodel page. If we don't have a list of real supermodels, people will continue to use the term loosely on any models like Pamela Anderson. Lil Flip246 18:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please don't conitnue to just repeat the same things over and over agein to try and have the last word and yet fail to answer direct questions. This is little short of being a troll. Doc 18:58, 25 July 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.