Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 1995 (2nd)


 * 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 keep. –  Will  ( E @ )  T  18:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 1995
This survived an AfD in August last year, but WP has changed the policy on whether judgment-based lists are copyvio; I am resubmitting it here. I also think it is POV and subjective, but that was laid to rest in August. Carlossuarez46 20:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC) I am also nominating: for the same reasons. Carlossuarez46 20:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 1996
 * FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 1997
 * FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 1998
 * FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 1999
 * FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 2000
 * FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 2001
 * FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 2002
 * FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 2003
 * FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 2004
 * FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 2005
 * FHM-US's 100 Sexiest Women 2000
 * FHM-US's 100 Sexiest Women 2001
 * FHM-US's 100 Sexiest Women 2002
 * FHM-US's 100 Sexiest Women 2003
 * FHM-US's 100 Sexiest Women 2004
 * FHM-US's 100 Sexiest Women 2005
 * FHM-US's 100 Sexiest Women 2006
 * Comment &mdash; Could you post a reference to the policy? Also what's to distinguish a notable-source, judgment-based list from a notable-source judgment-based award? Where is the line drawn? Thanks. &mdash; RJH 21:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment the policy is effected here [] notice that all the list parts of the articles have been deleted; a number have been chopped later, I figured that this would be more efficient than sending all these to copyvio land and make some admin decide whether there was anything worth keeping once the guts were removed. Carlossuarez46 05:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep is vote based so it falls under fact (AFAIK) -- E ivindt@c 22:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment not sure what that means, but see TIME Magazine's 100 most influential people of 2004 for an example where the list has been removed due to copyvio. In that case, the topic was deemed worthy of still having an article, here without the list FHM 100 Sexiest Women .... articles are of no value: so that's why delete is better; regardless of the vote, the lists of names themselves will be deleted as copyvio's per the admins' collective determination that lists such as these are infringing. If you want to keep the article without the list, I fail to see what it adds to an encyclopedia: we can already construct the next 100 years' articles. Carlossuarez46 05:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as advertising for FHM. Brian G. Crawford 22:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable. Why would FHM need wikipedia to advertise? This sounds like a notable yearly thing by a notable magazine. Furthermore I don't think it's supposed to mean 'the sexiest' but simply 'fhm's sexiest'. I don't think POV is an issue here. PrettyMuchBryce 01:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Isn't this type of material more suited for Wikisource? Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 09:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: There is huge precedent for keeping articles about POV based lists. Here are a few: Seven Wonders of the World, Person of the Year, Great Books of the Western World. The only question should be, "is this POV based list notable"? While FHM isn't Time or Encyclopedia Britannica, it is better known today than Antipater of Sidon. AnonEMouse 15:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I despise Maxim, FHM, etc., but AnonEMouse brings up excellent points. Sure, the list is POV, but so is every American Film Institute, but all of their "100 Years" lists are on Wikipedia. The FHM list is notable, and as such, it deserves its place on WP. -- Kicking222 18:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. WP:NOT for collections of trivia, WP:NOR.  Literally hundreds of magazines, most of which are barely more qualified than your table of buddies at the tavern, publish top-100 lists of all sorts of things.  The vast majority aren't any more notable than an FHM editorial about the length of hemlines or the price of beer.  When top-whatever lists are brought to AfD, a few (like Fortune 500) are kept because they got wide coverage in other media and have real effects on discussions of the topic, while the rest get deleted.  Did FHM's '95 sexiest women list get picked up by the Associated Press, get covered in featured articles in newsmagazines, or otherwise demonstrate significance to anyone who doesn't have the original issue open?  Barno 21:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to merge to one article (not keeping each list, but maybe each "#1") at FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World. Broad range of media coverage (as cited below) establishes notability for the list in general, but not for each year's copyrighted content.  Barno 13:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. FHM is notable, and its list in general is notable, but each individual list isn't notable, unless there's some news event related to it. Otherwise these are things for Wikisource, as there is no content in these articles other than the list itself.Fagstein 02:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Barno and Fagstein make an excellent point. The list is notable if and only if it is in itself a news event, and covered by other sources. So let's see some sources:
 * * Jolie sizzles atop 'FHM' sexiest list USA Today
 * * Britney dropped from 'Sexiest' list ITV
 * * Britney loses place on Sexiest Women list RTE.ie
 * * Britney Spears loses sex appeal FemaleFirst.co.uk
 * * Yahoo UK - repeats the list, with links to Yahoo image searches
 * * FHM's "100 Sexiest Women in the World" AceShowBiz.com
 * * FHM Readers Name Scarlett Johansson World's Sexiest Woman; Actress Tops Voting in FHM's 100 Sexiest Women in the World 2006 Readers' Poll Business Wire
 * * Beyonce Among FHM's 100 Sexiest Women Beyonce, Kelly Clarkson, Mariah make sexiest women list. Net Music Countdown
 * * Top 100 Sexiest Women and How Many Have Tattoos
 * * Jenna on FHM Sexiest List 7th Year in a Row Adult Industry News


 * And there are hundreds of others. About 1,000,000 hits on Google for FHM 100 list. You'll also notice most are for the placement of one specific entry on one specific list, and for how it differs from last year's list - clearly each individual list is being reported on, not just the idea that "FHM has such a list every year". AnonEMouse 13:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. Merge into FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World.Fagstein 04:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Transwiki to Wikisource or delete. Stifle (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The topic of the lists is probably good material for the FHM article, and is in there. Repeating the lists is surely copyvio?  And, um, can't the FHM site be consulted for the lists themselves?  Oops, no, apparently by subscription, then the lists here are copyvio.
 * * Comment Yahoo UK repeats the list, with links to Yahoo image searches. They clearly don't think it's a copyvio, and they've got better lawyers than we are. AnonEMouse 13:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * ... and different copyright laws. Barno 01:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair point. USA Today also repeats the list, however. AnonEMouse 12:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - notable list --Prof Jolly 11:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete 1995 listas clear copyvio, assuming that this statement in the article is correct: "Unlike in subsequent years, the 1995 list was chosen by the magazine's employees not by readers' votes". The subsequent years? Keep, I guess. I suppose the lists could be useful to someone researching, I dunno, the relative popularity of blondes vs brunettes or something like that... Herostratus 18:13, 27 April 2006 (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.