Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2000s icons


 * 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 Delete -- JForget  00:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

2000s icons

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete. I think it's pretty obivous the title is POVs, poor tone, this can never be salvaged. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 14:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete; an opinion piece, I don't see how this could be rewritten in a neutral, well-sourced fashion. --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Just who decides who or what are icons and who or what isn't? DarkAudit (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as a notable, helpful, interesting, and encyclopedic list, but it needs references. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 15:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a WP:ITSUSEFUL argument. Who decided that these particular entities were icons over others that were just as, if not more, deserving? By what definition is something or someone an "icon"? Who decided what the "best" is? This is just an indiscriminate list of links, really. DarkAudit (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it sounds like an "it's notable, helpful, interesting, and encyclopedic" argument. As to the questions, that just needs referencing per SOFIXIT and AfD not being clean up.  The article is undeniably discrmininate.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If I fixed it, there'd be almost nothing left. What is listed as "best" isn't necessarily what I'd include as "best". It would be POV fighting POV. There's no sources to say who, if anyone, came up with this list. Without first determining who made this list, it's just a list of links. Even if the list was made by a reliable and verifiable source, the article would need to be moved to "(Source)'s list of 2000s icons". It is not the place or the mission of Wikipedia editors to unilaterally decide who or what is or isn't an "icon". That is what appears to be the case here. DarkAudit (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to moving/retitling the article and again, the article does serve a valid purpose. Per our first pillar, we're also an almanac and almanacs have such lists.  The article has potential.  We just need to find some sources.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have messaged the primary contributor to the "best" list requesting further explanation. Other revisions to the list are from IP editors with no rhyme or reason, especially the Chuck Norris edit just prior to the AfD nom. DarkAudit (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And the reply was there really were no sources. "added things that was obviously quite true" is definitely POV. Obvious to one may not be as obvious to another. DarkAudit (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and DarkAudit. "THE BEST OF THE BEST: Chuck Norris"? Come on. That's encyclopedic? Editing down POV and fancruft would leave pretty much nothing.  freshacconci  speak to me  18:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Besides the fact that the identification of something as a "2000s icon" is highly subjective, there's also a massive cultural bias in this list. Besides a single nod to "the West's opposition with Islamic extremism and the industrialization of Asia", basically everything listed is specific to English-speaking Western countries, to America, or even to middle-upper-class white America. A sourced, comprehensive, culturally neutral rewrite might be acceptable, but it'd effectively have to be from scratch. Moreover, User:Tigerghost notes on the talk page that there are already a number of more specific articles in place, such as 2000s in film. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 19:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Remember the first decade of the 21st century?  Ask me in about 20 years.  Mandsford (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The problem inherent with "era in topic" articles, is that they are best viewed from a distance, with time for professional researchers and scholars to study, analyse, and publish reliable material on the subject. As we are still well within the 2000s, we lack the perspective necessary to make this article neutral, unbiased, externally verifiable, and relaibly sourced., and will continue to do so until twenty or thirty years have passed. -- saberwyn 23:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as an unsalvageably (and necessarily) incomplete article full of POV and lacking any form of balance. Disregarding the traditional arguments by those who seem wedded to the idea of such lists, there's not a reason to keep it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: The 2000s have better subpages that better sum up the information that is already currently in this article (e.g... 2000s in video gaming, 2000s in film, etc...). (Tigerghost (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC))
 * DESTROY. POV essay. +Hexagon1 (t) 03:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; I think DarkAudit summed it up well. Is this something we could right about?  Maybe in another century. --Haemo (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I understand Le Grand Roi's point, but I just don't think this is a feasible list to maintain. "Icons" in this decade are different things for different people (and for different reliable sources) and you could list just about everything made in the decade, if you could find a source for it (and in most cases you could). And thus, it'd become an indiscriminate list. IMO. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think there's any way for this to become an objective and sourced list. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.